Conference back40::soapbox

    listening to PRI this morning there were two people discussing the
    issues at hand. one was a former military lawyer and the other an
    expert in the UMCJ.
    
    statements were made that no less than a half dozen officers had been
    brought up on similar charges over the last year. it was also stated
    that the adultry charges are not really at issue here. clearly the Air
    Force is digging over the lies and insubordination. one of the experts 
    clearly stated that those are the issues "pulling the train" on this
    one. 
    
    they also stated that each of these alone would not have garnered any
    publicity or much attention from the media or the military. they stated
    that if the Air Force prosecuted every flyer that was adulterous, had
    lied or had been insubordinate, there would be no Air Force.  

                   <<< Note 14.14304 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    statements were made that no less than a half dozen officers had been
>    brought up on similar charges over the last year. it was also stated
>    that the adultry charges are not really at issue here.

	NBC Sunrise News reported 67 cases (I didn't catch the timeframe)
	were prosecuted, 60 men and 7 women. Only one case was for only
	adultery, all the others invloved other charges along with the
	adultery charge.

	CNN reported that Lt. Flinn WAS given the opportunity to "evict"
	her lover from her home, but she chose not to because she wanted
	to "salvage the relationship".

	All the "experts" agree that it is unlikely that her request for
	an honorable discharge will not be granted. Trial is scheduled to
	start today. Her lawyer has asked for a delay until the discharge
	request is processed.

	It appears that the Air Force gave her every opportunity to comply
	with the law. She chose poorly and must now face the consequences
	of her actions.

Jim

  As a practical matter, I hope they discharge her.  What is the point
 of a trial and jail, etc ?

  bb

  Politics.  The political stuff has everybody worried.

       <<< Note 14.14308 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  As a practical matter, I hope they discharge her.  What is the point
> of a trial and jail, etc ?

	She has said that her resignation is specifically contingent on
	a honorable discharge. That's just not going to happen. The only
	choice left after that is to proceed with the trial. So there IS
	a "point" to the trial. As for jail time, who knows what the
	sentencing will be? Forfeiture of rank, pay and benefits for sure.
	Jail time, maybe. Insubordination IS a serious offense, particularly
	for a pilot in her position.

	Another thought. When did she graduate from the Academy? Minimum
	service committment is, I believe, 6 years. She might be required
	to fufill this obligation as an enlisted person.


Jim

But ..... but ......  but .....


    She's the victim!!!!!!

    .14311
    
    you're the only one saying that.  /hth
    
    

>	All the "experts" agree that it is unlikely that her request for
>	an honorable discharge will not be granted.

Maybe the experts will be surprised.

The current word from both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
the Air Force seems to indicate that is is instead VERY LIKELY that her
request for an honorable discharge will be denied.

/john

| <<< Note 860.50 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "looking for deep meaning" >>>

| you're the only one saying that.  /hth

	Bonnie.... don't ya know??? Only the truly conservative idjits use the
term in cases like these, and not in real life cases. :-) He'll learn.... 

  If someone does know, would they post a reply.

  If the lover were an unmarried man, would she still be facing
   these charges?
  I get the impression that the charge of adultery spawned the rest of the
   charges. 
kb

    she had three last chances?

    
    doncha have to be married to commit adultery?
    i mean, legally?
    

 > I get the impression that the charge of adultery spawned the rest of the
 >  charges. 

 The charges stem from her lying to investigators. Even after the lies were
 exposed she was given a second (third?) chance but disobeyed orders to 
 break off the adulterous affair. Previously she had an affair with a single
 enlisted man, another big no no.

 So, the charges were brought about because of her continued disregard
 for the code of conduct, her superior officers, and the investigating officers.

 In other words, she's been screwing up for well over one and one half years
 and after multiple attempts attempts to set her straight failed.

 It is the lying and the disobeying of orders which are the most serious.
 The affairs were just the catalyst for the more serious crimes.

 >If the lover were an unmarried man, would she still be facing
 > these charges?

 If the lover was not an enlisted man, and she did not lie about it, then no,
 she wouldn't. As it turns out, the civilian man she was having an adulterous
 affair with was married to a member of the military.

 She lied specifically because she was in fear that her flying career would
 be put in jeopardy if found out. She KNEW what she was doing was wrong from
 the begining. She did it anyway. 

 Doug.

Sounds like she has a bad case of testosterone poisoning, or the female
equivalent thereof.

  estrogen ?

  bb

             <<< Note 860.51 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>         -< Do you have one too many "not"s in the experts' opinion? >-

	Indeed I do. Got interrupted halfway through the sentence.

Jim

    .57
    
    i am inclined to agree.
    

  well, it's a notty subject for a notty lady

  bb

    
    Uniform code of Military justice aside, it's time the military gets out
    of its enlisted and commisioned personel bedrooms. What goes on behind
    closed doors on off-duty time shouldn't concern Uncle Sam as long as
    it doesn't affect their military responsibilities.
    
    If you are appalled by the circus surrounding this court martial write
    to the secretary of the air force, Sheila E. Widnall and let her know
    how you feel.
    
    Her address is:
    
                      [email protected]
    
    
    Ummm, if you are in favor of her being booted out, don't bother
    writing (smiley face here). 
                       
        
    SSgt USAF 1968-1971

<-<< .56 

> The charges stem from her lying to investigators. 

 If she lied in response to her charges of adultery, therefrom comes my
 first question.  If her lover were unmarried, this train of events may
 not have been followed and she would have felt no need to lie.

> Previously she had an affair with a single
> enlisted man, another big no no.

 She has been charged with this.  Has she admitted it?  Does the military
 presume innocence until proven guilty?

> So, the charges were brought about because of her continued disregard
> for the code of conduct, her superior officers, and the investigating officers.
> In other words, she's been screwing up for well over one and one half years
> and after multiple attempts attempts to set her straight failed.

 I am not as intimately acquainted with this case as you seem to be.

> If the lover was not an enlisted man, and she did not lie about it, then no,
> she wouldn't. As it turns out, the civilian man she was having an adulterous
> affair with was married to a member of the military.

 So the difference in her civilian lover is whether he is married or not?
 Why would the military care if the civilian you had consensual sex with
 is married or not? Is it because he was married, or because he was married
 to an enlisted woman?

> She lied specifically because she was in fear that her flying career would
> be put in jeopardy if found out. She KNEW what she was doing was wrong from
> the begining. She did it anyway. 

  She has been charged with lying to her superiors and disregarding separation 
  of rank.  Serious offenses which are clearcut and punishable if she is
  convicted. You have convicted her already. To my knowledge she has only 
  admitted to a civilian lover. 

kb  

    Wonder if the adultry was with someone who was also a member of the
    military. In a good divorce game, "your enemy is my friend."

  she musta been a real bomber in the sack...

  bb

She fell for tailgunners.

    re: KB
    
 >If her lover were unmarried, this train of events may
 >not have been followed and she would have felt no need to lie.
    
    Or, if her lovers wife hadn't been in the military, perhaps they
    would not have found out, but she would have still been violating
    the code.
    
> So the difference in her civilian lover is whether he is married or not?
> Why would the military care if the civilian you had consensual sex with
> is married or not? Is it because he was married, or because he was married
> to an enlisted woman?
    
    The military has some very good reasons for the code of conduct.
    The press has gone over them quite a bit of late. I've even listed some
    of them.
    
>  She has been charged with lying to her superiors and disregarding separation 
>  of rank.  Serious offenses which are clearcut and punishable if she is
>  convicted. You have convicted her already. To my knowledge she has only 
>  admitted to a civilian lover. 

    She has admitted to the infractions (lying, disobeying orders, the
    affairs) and given a public explaination as to why. I'm merely playing
    the parrot.
    
    The reason she lied was to protect her career. The reason she didn't
    end the relationship is because she was engaged to the man, he having
    told her that he was legally separated and the divorce was pending
    (he lied, she fell for it).
    
     Doug.

	Cafe society notwithstanding, it's in rather bad taste
	to get engaged to someone who's not yet divorced.

    
    .69
    
    agagagagag.
    

    re: SSGT SCHWABE
    
    >If you are appalled by the circus surrounding this court martial write
    >to the secretary of the air force, Sheila E. Widnall and let her know
    >how you feel.
     
    Why do you suppose it is that is the first time a case of this type
    has become a circus when there have been over 60 such cases in the
    last 12 months? The circus is the defendants creation by going public
    (her lawyers tactic I believe). The military should ignore the 
    flack and follow protocol.
    
    >Uniform code of Military justice aside, it's time the military gets out
    >of its enlisted and commisioned personel bedrooms. What goes on behind
    >closed doors on off-duty time shouldn't concern Uncle Sam as long as
    >it doesn't affect their military responsibilities.
    
    Fine, work to change the rules, but violators should be held
    accountable until such time as the rules change (which IMHO, they
    shouldn't).
    
    
   >Her address is:
   >                       [email protected]
    
    Thanks for the address. I'll send her a message of support straight
    away ;-)
    
    Doug.

    
    Let me quote some from the newspaper:
    
    Apparently President Kennedy demonstrated that men can handle
    adultery much better than women.  As commander in chief, he
    dallied while taking this nation through the Cuban missile
    crisis.  With the end of world at hand and this adulterer had his
    finger on the retaliatory nuclear button.
    
    Can you explain why a male lieutenant colonel who was
    charged with an adulterous affair with his secretary last year
    at the same base as Flinn had his wrist slipped with only $4600
    fine and a mere reprimaid.  Men have need that the military has
    long recognized.
    
    Prosititutes were among the most loyal supporters of our 
    fighting men.  And was there ever a sign posted that services of 
    camp followers were off limits to married men?
    
    Too bad that Flinn decided that fall in love with a soccor couch
    is much saver that getting a commercial sex.  That is the problem
    with women, they are always looking for meanful relationship/true
    love.  And the military punish for that.
    
    Now that flinn is in court marshal.  Women libbers will demand that
    the military punish male adulterers.  That could become a full time
    preoccupation of the military. Even surpassing the hunt for gays.
    
    How about those women soldier got pregnant while on active duty
    on ships?  Has the military check it out that those fathers are
    married or not?
    

    is RU RAUH?

    
    .71
    
    I guess the address is bogus, just got a rejection...

>                         <<< Note 860.72 by LABC::RU >>>

    
>    Too bad that Flinn decided that fall in love with a soccor couch

	sofa, so bad.

>    Now that flinn is in court marshal.  Women libbers will demand that
>    the military punish male adulterers. 

	ooh, those pesky women libbers, eh?

    Ru is not Rauh. But, yha should have nutured em all way back when!:)

    
    re: RU
    
    
    Bwwwwhahahahahahahhhahaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhhaaa   .....
    
    
    You crack me up!
    
    Doug.

From what I heard today, adultery charges and convictions have been
brought against 42 men and 2 women in the last 10 years (in the Air Force).



Jim

    from a statistical perspective that is an incredibly low percentage.
    
    i wonder how many situations actually occurred? i know that's data
    we'll never know, but i'll bet the numbers would boggle the mind.
    
    ...and, how many were found out but swept under the rug? 

  adultery under a rug is inadvisable.  apart from the danger of
 suffocation, the writhing, moaning lumps in the carpet are a dead
 giveaway to the cuckolded spouse

  bb

    Just curious...
    
    What about the married man who was ALSO a part of the "adultry"?    
    He isn't apart of the AF I believe but...are there any charges rasied 
    against him?

The Air Force can't charge a civilian.

I've heard many different reports about the number of people brought up on
this charge. When the press gives a report the numbers seem low. When a 
military authority is interviewed, the numbers are significantly higher.

I've also read that many adultery charges are not pursued when more serious
charges are being pursued, usually as a result of adultery.

This mornings Globe had a report about a couple of women being charged,
one which has a son from the relationship facing a possible 35 years in
prison. All this in lieu of 19 officers who married enlisted personel at the
same base.

While I agree that the military needs to maintain its code of conduct, 35 years
seems a tad bit extreme.

Meanwhile, Lott wants the current defendant to get an honrable discharge.
Somehow, I don't find lying and violating the military code very honorable.

Doug.

>From what I heard today, adultery charges and convictions have been
>brought against 42 men and 2 women in the last 10 years (in the Air Force).

This mornings globe covered at least two women, so I suspect the above
information is bogus.

    .21
    >>a woman can't think straight when there's a man around<<
    
    And the Sargents at the Aberdeen Proving Ground have no problem
    thinking straight around woman I suppose?
    
    

                    <<< Note 860.79 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    ...and, how many were found out but swept under the rug? 

	Depending on your definition, I suspect quite a few.

	Remember, this case would have been "swept under the rug"
	(probably nothing more than a note in her personnel jacket)
	if Lt. Flinn had decided to salvage her carreer rather than
	salvage her relationship.

Jim

    'tis a pity.  I've noticed that lately, careers tend to last a lot
    longer than most relationships.

                     <<< Note 860.81 by CSC32::C_BENNETT >>>

>    What about the married man who was ALSO a part of the "adultry"?    
>    He isn't apart of the AF I believe but...are there any charges rasied 
>    against him?

	"He isn't part of the AF" being the operative phrase. As a civilian
	he is not subject to military regulations, and adultery is not a 
	crime in most civilian jurisdictions.

Jim

    
    .85
    
    er, that comment was made a tad facetiously.
    but in some cases, i think it applies.
    

|               <<< Note 860.87 by BULEAN::BANKS "Goose Cooker" >>>
|
|        'tis a pity.  I've noticed that lately, careers tend to last a lot
|        longer than most relationships.
    
    there is a simple reason why:
    
        "Work is patient work is kind. It does not envy
        it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not
        rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily
        angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Work does
        not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
        It always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
        Work never fails."
    

      What version Glenn???

    
    i think they should court martial her. then take her out and shoot her.

 Was she drafted into the Air Force?

    No.

 So, she wasn't forced into becoming an officer in the Air Force, correct?

    
    jimbob, you sure are wickit smaht.

 It's the pesto, I tell ya.

That's what makes you a pest?

 Oh.

    Tony, it was one of the satanically inspired translations, paraphrased
    even.

    
    American Heritage Dictionary
    
    adultery:  Sexual intercourse between a married person and one other
    than the lawful spouse.
    
    I don't even think this woman committed adultery.  She was not married,
    her lover was married.  But that aside.  She has supposedly lied to 
    investigators, a big integrity issue.  She was told to stop this
    behavior, many times, and ignored this advice/order.
    
    She has now gone to the press, in an attempt to get an honorable
    discharge.  
    
    She is worth over 2 million dollars to the Air Force.  
    
    If she is convicted of lying, and summarily discharged/imprisioned, she
    owes the government some money, in my opinion.  Or fine her for lying
    and put her back in the cockpit.  Let's get our money's worth out of
    her.
    
    
    And I'll have to say her choice of lovers is very questionable, the guy
    can't wait to spill the beans on when she was told to stop seeing him,
    how they "conspired" to cover up the affair, etc, a real scumbag, if
    you ask me.
    
    And men are always accused of thinking with a certain part of their
    anatomy!
    
    I guess that's what women's liberation is all about.  Liberation to
    make a complete idiot of yourself and possibly ruin you life, all for 
    a roll in the hay.
    
    yahoo!
    
    /art

    
    	
    throw that AHD crap out! :)
    
    

    >I guess that's what women's liberation is all about.  Liberation to
    >make a complete idiot of yourself and possibly ruin you life, all for 
    >a roll in the hay.

	Yep, that's it!  

    .101
    
    /I guess that's what women's liberation is all about.  Liberation
    /to make a complete idiot of yourself
    
    yes!  we've finally achieved equality with you guys!!
    
    

    $ set mode="Vinny Barbarino"
    
    What? Where?
    
    $ set mode="norml"

    .101
    
    > adultery:  Sexual intercourse between a married person and one other
    > than the lawful spouse.
    
    Did or did not Kelly Flinn engage in sexual intercourse with a married
    man to whom she was not married?
    
    What?  She did?  She committed adultery - you will surely note that
    even the CAHD does not specify that only the married individual is
    guilty in such cases.  And she did it knowingly, because she was
    reportedly under the impression that he was separated and waiting for a
    divorce.  "Separated" is still "married."
    
    She is guilty as charged of this offense.

    
    .106
    
    now that we've dispensed with justice, shoot her.

                     <<< Note 860.101 by NETCAD::GENOVA >>>

>    If she is convicted of lying, and summarily discharged/imprisioned, she
>    owes the government some money, in my opinion.  Or fine her for lying
>    and put her back in the cockpit.  Let's get our money's worth out of
>    her.
 
	She graduated in 1993. As far as I can see she owes two years
	of a six year committment. She can fufill that committment as
	an E-1. THEN you can give her an honorable discharge.

Jim

    
    The military has no business on her private love life.
    Get real.  Or the military should get rid of all the homo.
    Apply 'don't ask, don't tell' policy equally.

 That's right.  There should be absolutely no standards of behavior or 
 discipline in the military.  People should be able to do whatever they
 want, whenever they want, with whomever they want.  And by golly, if they
 don't feel flying on a given day, they shouldn't have to.  Who the heck
 to those superior officers think they are anyway?  Why the whole concept
 of superior officers is damaging to one's self esteem.


 Jim

 This is the freaking military, for crying out loud, not the mall cops.  These
 people are responsible for carrying out the defense of the country.  If they
 can't hold to the rules to which they agreed when they joined, if they can't
 obey orders, if they can't tell the truth, bust them to the lowest level,
 make them serve their commitment, then get them the heck out.



Jim

    Re .101:
    
    > American Heritage Dictionary
    >
    > adultery:  Sexual intercourse between a married person and one other
    > than the lawful spouse.

    So if you do it with two other people, it's not adultery?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    jim feels strongly on this issue.  or maybe it's the garlic.
    

    Re .110:
    
    > There should be absolutely no standards of behavior or discipline in
    > the military.
    
    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
    in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
    standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

      <<< Note 860.114 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
>    in private behavior

	The concept of "private behavior" in the military is far far
	different than that in civilian life.

Jim

    .112
    
    > So if you do it with two other people, it's not adultery?
    
    Intersecting sets.

    Re .115:
    
    > 	The concept of "private behavior" in the military is far far
    >	different than that in civilian life.

    But it still exists, and your jump is still invalid.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: .112

I guess that would be two instances of adultery in that case.

Binder might have said that in his recent reply, but my translator is 
on the fritz.

      <<< Note 860.117 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    > 	The concept of "private behavior" in the military is far far
>    >	different than that in civilian life.

>    But it still exists, and your jump is still invalid.
 
Eric,	Not like you to lose track. I didn't make the jump, I merely 
	commented on your "private behavior" point.

	As for privacy/private behavior and the military, there is
	significantly less privacy when you are in the service than
	we are accustomed to in civilian life. Whether this is "right"
	or "wrong" is certainly a subject for debate, but it is nonetheless
	true.

	Lt. Flinn agreed to accept this reduced level of privacy when
	she took her oath. She can not now complain that the AF has
	no business in her personal life and remain consistent to that
	oath.

Jim

    How about the President, then? 

    >    How about the President, then?
    
    A) The president isn't in the military. He is a civilian commander
       and answers to the people.
    
    B) While you may have point, you do not have a defense.
    
    Doug.

    So, his oath of office excludes his personal life?

>LABC::RU                                              4 lines  21-MAY-1997 16:27
>    
>    The military has no business on her private love life.
>    Get real.  Or the military should get rid of all the homo.
>    Apply 'don't ask, don't tell' policy equally.
    
    I wonder each and every time you enter a note whether you
    intentionally entering silly ramblings, or you just never
    aplly an once of energy actually thinking about an issue
    before you spout off.
    
    The military does not involve itself in the private affairs
    of its members unless and until it has a potentially negative
    effect on other members of the military.
    
    Two examples (there are plenty more) of this already 
    covered in this stream are relations between officers 
    and enlisted personel, and relations with the spouse of a 
    member of the military.
    
    Now, before you type a response, think about HOW such behavior
    can be damaging to the military and WHY the code of conduct prohibits
    it (what are they protecting?). Consider the lifestyle of a military
    person in your ponderings.
    
    As for your homo comment, consider that the "don't ask,don't tell"
    policy would not be the only issue in a homosexual relationship between
    and officer and an enlisted person, or with the spouse of same.
    
    Doug.

    
!    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
!    in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
!    standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.
    
    Considering "the military has no business in private behavior" a
    reasonable statement is what is absurd. He was merely illustrating
    absurdity with absurdity. Too bad you didn't recognize it for what it
    was.
    
    Doug.

>    So, his oath of office excludes his personal life?
    
    Oddly enough, the president is not bound by the military
    code of justice. His personal life is governed by the same
    laws as your and mine.
    
    Doug.

    
>!    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
!>    in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
>!    standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.
    
 >   Considering "the military has no business in private behavior" a
 >   reasonable statement is what is absurd. He was merely illustrating
 >   absurdity with absurdity. Too bad you didn't recognize it for what it
 >   was.
    
  

 Thank you..that is what I was doing.

>   <<< Note 860.126 by DASXPS::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>

> Thank you..that is what I was doing.

	Clearly, but it's too late, Jimmy.  You have discredited yourself
	and that's all there is to it.  Big sorry.

 I was afraid of that.  Oh well.

   .128   That will teach you to venture so cavalierly into the
	  world of the absurd.

    Re .119:
    
    > She can not now complain that the AF has no business in her personal
    > life and remain consistent to that oath.
    
    Yes, she can.  Complaining does not violate the oath.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .124:
    
    > Considering "the military has no business in private behavior" a
    > reasonable statement is what is absurd.

    No, it is not absurd.  Apply reasoning:  What is private is, by
    definition, nobody else's business.  So it is not the military's
    business.
    
    There may be some argument that the military has more business in
    soldiers' _personal_ lives because those lives affect the military, but
    that does not mean there is nothing about those lives that remains
    _private_, and what is private is not the military's business.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    jimbob, you have dishonored yourself and the soapbox community at
    large. I'm afraid hiri kiri is the only option. be brave.

>      <<< Note 860.131 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

	oh lordy.  i don't usually complain about people splitting
	hairs semantically, because i'm guilty of it myself, but
	that was a stretch.  "personal" vs. "private".  gimme a break.

   hara-kiri

Just make sure your throw yourself in the recycling bin
labelled "stiffs", Jimbo.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    thanks, di. what would I do without you?

>   .128   That will teach you to venture so cavalierly into the
>	  world of the absurd.


 Well, to paraphrase Oph "it must have been the garlic"

   > There may be some argument that the military has more business in
   > soldiers' _personal_ lives because those lives affect the military, but
   > that does not mean there is nothing about those lives that remains
   > _private_, and what is private is not the military's business.
   
   Fine. The problem is where one draws the line. Following the topic of this
   string the issue is whether a soldiers relationships should be none
   of the militaries business (private).
  
   In the context of this discussion, that is absurd, for a multitude of
   reasons.

   Define RUs absurd statements as reasonable, is also absurd.

   If you want to play semantics between _personal_ and _private_, play with
   yourself.

   Doug.

    
    .138
    
    this used to be such a nice conference. i think the goderators have got
    to start cracking down on the stupid, inane, insensitive comments made
    by noters. wait a minute, what am i saying here?

	While social libertines would like to claim that who is
	having sex with whom is none of society's business, the
	facts are otherwise.

	Because of the impact of sexual relations on society,
	human societies have always regulated sexual behaviour.

	A recent major article in U.S. News and World Report
	raises strong questions about the impact of pre- and
	extramarital sexual relations on society and points out
	a number of ills which have resulted from the so-called
	sexual revolution.

	Sexual behaviour has an impact outside the bedroom in
	other aspects of a person's life, and persons who are
	employed in certain professions, especially those which
	require unfailing attention to duty, can rightly expect
	their employers to be concerned not about what goes on
	in the bedroom but about who goes into the bedroom with
	whom.

    
    you hear that April?? knock off the sex, immediately.

What, did you just get a new pair of binoculars, /john?

    Re .138:
    
    > The problem is where one draws the line. Following the topic of this
    > string the issue is whether a soldiers relationships should be none of
    > the militaries business (private).
    
    Indeed it is, but that is not what was written initially.  And it is
    not just a matter of fine semantics but the simple fact that what was
    written was wrong.
    
    > In the context of this discussion, that is absurd, for a multitude
    > of reasons.
    
    That is also wrong.  In the context of this discussion, nothing has
    been put forward to show why the military should be interested in
    personal relationships generally.  There are some specific concerns
    that are valid to the military:  Relationships that may compromise
    security (e.g., with foreign nationals) or, in this case, relationships
    that may interfere with morale and ethics.  But there is NO basis for
    denying a claim that soldiers do and should have private lives or that
    such a claim implies there should be no standards whatsoever.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

  Sexuality (other than solo efforts) is inherently social, and is
 everybody's business.  I have seen the debilitating effects of workplace
 dalliance.  It affects everybody.  This issue will never go away.

  bb

860.140

On the other hand /John, 50 years ago we killed each other by the tens of
millions, even using the very bombs that are now at the centre of this
debate.  We don't seem to be doing that much killing these days, so
maybe a bit of rumpo has its up side.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Well, this bit of rumpo may land Flinn in the Old Bailey.

    Re .140:
    
    And what happens in church also affects society and relationships and
    employment.  Therefore society should regulate what goes on in church. 
    In particular, the beliefs of your church should be outlawed, since
    they are obscene and repugnant to the mind and human spirit.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    >> Well, this bit of rumpo may land Flinn in the Old Bailey.
    
    
    well, if she ends up over here, i'll buy her a coffee...
    
    

 Mr. Clinton has sure been quiet on this issue, eh?

Globe cartoon today has Hillary telling him, "No, I don't think any comment
from the Commander-in-Chief is necessary."

  Except, there is a Constitutional provision protecting religion, and
 there is none protecting sex.  There is a provision protecting privacy
 in your home, however.  Whether it applies here, depends on the usual
 factors in a privacy case : the sexuality must take place in your home,
 you must have taken action to attempt to secure privacy, and you had to
 have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  bb

    
    This military is not a democracy.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice
    is very clear on the subject of adultery, lying, and disobeying orders.
    
    Society is not telling soldiers what to do, the military is telling
    it's soldiers what to do, there is a major (pun intended) difference
    between society and the military.
    
    The more I think about it, the more I think she should be busted, more
    for stupidity, than anything else.  This investigation never should
    have been brought before the public.  It is none of our business.
    
    The military has rules, follow them, and you'll usually have no
    problems, break them and all sorts of bad things can happen to you.
    
    It seems that she wants to only obey those rules and orders that she
    thinks are appropriate.  She doesn't belong in the military, she belong
    in the government :>).
    
    And all of this sympathy for her is simply ridiculous.
    
    I don't see anyone crying for Frank Gifford, and all of his lost
    endorsements, etc.  He is a scumbag, same as our "Officer of the month".
    It seems that public condemnation is swift and sure when the adulteror
    is a man, but if it is a woman, there is room for debate, I don't think
    so!
    
    /art

    >It seems that public condemnation is swift and sure when the adulteror
    >is a man, but if it is a woman, there is room for debate, I don't think
    >so!

	Another insightful comment.

   > That is also wrong.  In the context of this discussion, nothing has
   > been put forward to show why the military should be interested in
   > personal relationships generally.


    We must be having two different discussions then. I thought we were 
    discussing why the military should be interested in personal relationships
    specifically. I've also stated that the military isn't interested 
    personal relationships which falls outside of the defined specifics.

    Kelly has participated in two examples of specific relationships 
    that the military IS and SHOULD be interested in. The reasons are obvious.
 
    Doug.

      <<< Note 860.130 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    > She can not now complain that the AF has no business in her personal
>    > life and remain consistent to that oath.
    
>    Yes, she can.  Complaining does not violate the oath.
 
	Clever sematics. When she took the oath, she agreed to follow the
	rules related to military life. One of those rules forbids adultery.
	She broke that rule. Had she simply wanted to complain, she could
	have done so, but to now use the "they have no business in my personal
	life" as a defense for her behavior IS inconsistent with the oath.

Jim

    
    /It seems that she wants to only obey those rules and orders that
    /she thinks are appropriate.
    
    Like MacArthur?
    
    

       <<< Note 860.156 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "looking for deep meaning" >>>
    
    >Like MacArthur?
    
     Different era wasn't it? 
    

  macarthur got fired for that

  bb

    
    .157
    
    different era, same offense.  how about patton?
    

    .158
    
    yes he did, eventually.

    The prezz should he held accountable for his act as anyone else.
    Richard Nixon was held accountable for his acts with Watergate. Why are
    the fist fam today imune to prosucution of Whitewate Gate and the other
    charges against his sorry butt side?
    

Patton and Macarthur were relieved of their commands and fired.

I'm sure you have a point here somewhere. Then again, maybe not.

    Re .133:
    
    > . . . a stretch.  "personal" vs. "private".
    
    You think the words are close only because most people use them
    fuzzily.  But the concepts are distinct.  Information about a person
    may be public or it may be private, and public things may be about a
    person or not about any specific person.  I used the words properly to
    separate the concepts in a pertinent way.
    
    Fuzzy thinking gets most people by most of the time.  Walking in a
    valley, it doesn't matter much if you stick to the marked path; either
    side of the path is usually almost as good as the path.  But the wrong
    side of a cliff edge is not almost as good as the right side.  The
    precision with which you apply your reasoning must depend upon the
    local terrain, and you must distinguish between similar concepts when
    the distinction is pertinent.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    //It seems that she wants to only obey those rules and orders that
    //she thinks are appropriate.
    
    genoa spurted this statement out as if it was a _new_ thing.  it's
    not.  and it's happened at all levels in the military.
    
    

> You think the words are close only because most people use them
>    fuzzily.  But the concepts are distinct.

  Fine, be a sport and substitute 'personal' for 'private', accept that
  as the intended meaning, and get on with discussing the issue.

  This should be easy for you given you understanding of how easily these
  words can be misused.

    >genoa spurted this statement out 
    
     TTWA:
    
     Do women spurt out statements too? Or are they too busy yammering? ;-)

    Re .154:
    
    > I've also stated that the military isn't interested personal
    > relationships which falls outside of the defined specifics.
    
    If that is so, then the argument must be that some specific behavior,
    not all, is military business -- it must not be the absurd statement
    that a claim of privacy implies there can be no standards.
    
    
    Re .155:
    
    > 	Clever sematics.
    
    Semantics should be clever; intelligent arguments are better than
    stupid ones.  The distinction is not just one of semantics:  Saying a
    person should be held to their agreement is fine, but saying they
    cannot complain is not just not fine; it is an atrocity because it
    denies the right to redress wrongs.  A person who is prevented from
    complaining is prevented from making a defense.  Suppressing complaint
    is suppressing justice.
    
    Confusing "no right to evade punishment" with "no right to complain" is
    not a slight error; it is a gross devaluation of the right to free
    speech.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .165:
    
    > Fine, be a sport and substitute 'personal' for 'private', accept that
    > as the intended meaning, and get on with discussing the issue.
    
    Oh, so if you rewrite what the other person wrote, THEN you are
    correct, and they are wrong.  Sure, that will work.
    
    Bull.  You can't make other people wrong by changing what they say.
    I wrote "private" in .114, and it is a correct statement.  The fact
    that the same statement with "private" changed to "personal" is
    incorrect has no bearing on anything, because it isn't what I wrote.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

The Webster definition of personal includes a reference to privacy and
the definition of privacy references personal.  Must be another
fuzzy crap dictionary.






[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

  And the constitution nowhere mentions any right to anything "personal" or
 "private".  That's fantasy.  What it says is (Fourth Amendment) "The right
 of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
 against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
 warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
 affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
 persons or things to be seized."

  bb

    She was asked by officials to stop having the affair. The wife of the
    civilian IS a member of the AirForce. An enlisted personal. The lie was
    that she stopped seeing the man, and was not having an affiar. 
    
    In the military, you do not have personal life, you have only one life.
    The military life. Period.

from:

@Note 860.109          Charges of adultery against AF pilot            109 of 169
@LABC::RU                                              4 lines  21-MAY-1997 16:27
@--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@    
@    The military has no business on her private love life.
@    Get real.  Or the military should get rid of all the homo.
@    Apply 'don't ask, don't tell' policy equally.
@

The response (Perhaps this is a response to a different note?):

#Note 860.110          Charges of adultery against AF pilot            110 of 169
#DECXPS::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day"  11 lines  21-MAY-1997 16:34
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#
# That's right.  There should be absolutely no standards of behavior or 
# discipline in the military.  People should be able to do whatever they
# want, whenever they want, with whomever they want.  And by golly, if they
# don't feel flying on a given day, they shouldn't have to.  Who the heck
# to those superior officers think they are anyway?  Why the whole concept
# of superior officers is damaging to one's self esteem.

The response to the response:

%Note 860.114          Charges of adultery against AF pilot            114 of 169
%RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         15 lines  21-MAY-1997 16:48
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%    Re .110:
%    
%    > There should be absolutely no standards of behavior or discipline in
%    > the military.
%    
%    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
%    in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
%    standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.
%    

It appears to me that "The military has no business on her private love life"
and " the reasonable statement that the military has no business in 
private behavior" are directly correllated to each other, although worded
differently. Now either they do correlate, or you are trying to change the 
meaning of the authors comments through semantical application.

Then we have:

*Note 860.168          Charges of adultery against AF pilot            168 of 169
*RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         19 lines  22-MAY-1997 10:42
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*    Re .165:
*    
*    > Fine, be a sport and substitute 'personal' for 'private', accept that
*    > as the intended meaning, and get on with discussing the issue.
*    
*    Oh, so if you rewrite what the other person wrote, THEN you are
*    correct, and they are wrong.  Sure, that will work.
*    
*    Bull.  You can't make other people wrong by changing what they say.
*    I wrote "private" in .114, and it is a correct statement.  The fact
*    that the same statement with "private" changed to "personal" is
*    incorrect has no bearing on anything, because it isn't what I wrote.
 
This leaves me to wonder why you think changing the authors meaning would
make you correct.

Now you may disagree with me, but I believe the authors (RU) intented meaning
was that the military should have no business in the personal private 
relations of its soldiers under any circumstances.
 

Doug.   
    

>      <<< Note 860.163 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    You think the words are close only because most people use them
>    fuzzily.  But the concepts are distinct.  Information about a person
>    may be public or it may be private, and public things may be about a
>    person or not about any specific person.  I used the words properly to
>    separate the concepts in a pertinent way.

       Dear Mr. Postpischil, I'm quite aware of the importance of using
       precise language.  I have a whole lot of respect for your ability
       to be precise.  Equally important, imho, is being able to tell
       what someone is getting at even if he has used "fuzzy" terminology,
       the RU/Henderson sequence being an example of that.  The distinction
       between "private" and "personal" may be pertinent with respect to
       the entire discussion, but it wasn't during that exchange, as I see it.

    
    It's quite obvious to this reader, that the reason this woman had the
    affair to begin with, was that she was under the influence of Melrose
    Place. I mean, in MP, this sort of thing goes on all the time. In fact,
    it's encouraged behavior. This is where the woman failed. show her
    pity, she forgot Hollywood and reality rarely ever mix.

    I submit, gentlepersons all, that we are experiencing an instance of
    linguistic precision only insofar as it suits the agenda of the writer
    to be precise.  Argument for linguistic precision is credible only when
    it is accompanied by a demonstration of such precision, and we are not
    seeing that demonstration here.  The obvious disjunction is a graphic
    demonstration of the weakness of "Do as I say, not as I do" methods
    of instruction.

    Re .169:
    
    The fact that the dictionary presents several meanings for a word does
    not change the fact that I used one specific meaning.
    
    
    Re .170:
    
    Is the Constitution the only tools you have for figuring out right
    versus wrong?  Under the Constitution, the government could paint every
    government building purple, but that doesn't mean it should.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .171:
    
    > In the military, you do not have personal life, you have only one life.
    
    Bull.  Soldiers have personal effects in personal lockers.  Soldiers
    are granted leave from time to time.  Soldiers have families.  Some of
    them maintain homes in non-government buildings.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .172:
    
    > It appears to me that "The military has no business on her private
    > love life" and " the reasonable statement that the military has no
    > business in  private behavior" are directly correllated to each other,
    > although worded differently.
    
    And they both say "private," which is the word and meaning I defended.
    
    > This leaves me to wonder why you think changing the authors meaning
    > would make you correct.
    
    You have that backwards.  It is my claim that the original wording of
    "private" is correct.  It was YOU who said to change "private" to
    "personal".  It is YOU who are saying a change must be made to make
    your statement correct.  I say the original is correct.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .173:
    
    > . . . the RU/Henderson sequence being an example of that.  The
    > distinction between "private" and "personal" may be pertinent with
    > respect to the entire discussion, but it wasn't during that exchange,
    > as I see it.
    
    That is not relevant to your complaint that "personal" and "private"
    are similar, because nobody has said the distinction was part of the
    sequence in .109 to .110.  I used the concept of "personal" versus
    "private" in .131, without implying that anybody else did, 
    specifically to illustrate the boundaries of privacy -- as a method of
    showing that some things should remain private, not the military's
    business.  That distinction is pertinent there because it separates two
    concepts, showing how the military may have business in personal
    behavior while not having business in private behavior.
                          
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

  No, the Constitution nowhere mentions right and wrong.  That is not
 the question in this case, either.  What is right or wrong is utterly
 irrelevant to the pilot's case.  She broke a law, passed by Congress.
 It is absolutely no defense for her to say, "Others get away with it."
 It is absolutely no defense to prove 100% logically foolproof that the
 law is wrong.  She still goes to jail.  The only appeal she can have is
 that the law is unconstitutional, which says nothing about what is "wrong".

  But the law isn't unconstitutional, because no unlawful search is
 involved, so she is guilty.  It is now merelt a matter of clemency.
 She should beg for mercy.

  The question of "right" and "wrong", as to whether they even exist, is
 unproven.  There's no basis for it, other than power.  In the USA, that
 comes down to a vote, as to what is wrong.  You are free to disagree,
 to say so, but not to act upon your disagreement.

  What makes you think that "privacy" is good ?  There is precious little
 anthropological evidence for any privacy in primitive human societies,
 nor for any "sexual freedom".  On the contrary, sex is surrounded by taboos
 everywhere.

  Just because you hold to some mystical ideology that says people should
 be able to have sex with anybody they like, proves nothing.  There is no
 evidence there is any good for society in upholding a silly "right" like that.

  bb

Private Parts has a personal locker full of pictures of privates and
books about corporal punishment.  To keep out the other privates and
corporals should he label it "private" or "personal"?



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

>      <<< Note 860.179 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    That is not relevant to your complaint that "personal" and "private"
>    are similar, because nobody has said the distinction was part of the
>    sequence in .109 to .110.  I used the concept of "personal" versus
>    "private" in .131, without implying that anybody else did, 

	It most certainly _is_ relevant.  Are you choosing to ignore
	all that was said between .110 and .131?  Like the discussion
	magically leapt from the RU/Henderson exchange to your 
	expose' on the distinction between the terms?

 If this woman has done nothing wrong, why doesn't she want to go through
 the court martial to prove herself and clear her name?  I would think
 that her supporters would advocate that.


 Jim

    
    	re .183
    
    	Because you know that the only reason that the Air Force is doing
    this is because she is an smart,strong,powerful, rising thru the ranks
    woman. 
    
    	They aren't interested in the truth, no wait, that's Susan
    MacDugal....
    
    
    ed

 I heard one of her defenders say "But, she's only 25 years old" on Crossfire
 a couple nights ago.



 Jim

  I just love this "right and wrong" bit.  As if nobody could see that a
 single officer stealing the affections of an enlisted person's spouse
 had social consequences.  Sheesh.  I suppose gratifying your own grandiose
 sexual apetites, no matter how much misery you spread around society is
 now considered "healthy, right, and good".  It is only those who lead
 traditional family lives who are "repressed, wrong, bad"...

  Not to mention what such an incident does to the team dynamic of trying to
 run stressful missions involving complex and lethal equipment.  The notion
 that it is "private" that the pilot is boffing the crew's hubby, boggles.

  bb

<-<< .68           
    
    
>    Or, if her lovers wife hadn't been in the military, perhaps they
>    would not have found out, but she would have still been violating
>    the code.

  Is it against the code for an officer to get laid with someone other
  than their spouse?  

  Does that mean if you are single and in the military you cannot get laid?

  This probably is not mentioned during the recruitment phase :-)

kb

    
    /Does that mean if you are single and in the military you cannot get
    /laid?
    
    a friend of mine, an ex-army guy, told me that in the '60s the 
    enlisted guys favored the officers' wives over the enlisted gals.
    
    

    .177
    
    EDP Your on call 24 x 7 days a week. Tell me that you don't belong to
    the goverment? If you take drugs, try to abuse yourself as you could in
    civilain life, you held accountable in for your self abuse, unlike the
    civilians. Less you have work with em or been there, your talking thru
    your hat.
    

"officers wives over enlisted gals"

Sounds a bit ambiguous Oph.  Are you sure you are being as
linguistically precise as possible?


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    "officers wives over enlisted gals"
    
    That's what I call a thrill quotient.

  hey, koala, singles get to do singles ?  marrieds is exclusive ?

   bb

Now we know how the Brian Brain works.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Oh, George, is there no hope for you?

      <<< Note 860.176 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

> Under the Constitution, the government could paint every
> government building purple, but that doesn't mean it should.

Purple? I like purple. 

What? oh buildings?

nevermind. 

  > And they both say "private," which is the word and meaning I defended
  >  You have that backwards.  It is my claim that the original wording of
  >  "private" is correct.
  
   Fine. In the authors intended meaning, is Kelly's affair (love life) a 
   private matter which should not fall under military regulation or a 
   personal matter which should fall under military scrutiny ?

@    The military has no business on her private love life.
@    Get real.  Or the military should get rid of all the homo.
@    Apply 'don't ask, don't tell' policy equally.
@

   Is RU talking about all issues of love life or just those that are not
   covered by the MCoJ?


#   It was YOU who said to change "private" to
#    "personal".  It is YOU who are saying a change must be made to make
#    your statement correct.

   My motivation was merely to accomodate you, to get beyond this little
   word game, and move on to understanding the intended meaning of the
   author (not to make any particular statement correct). Answering the 
   above two questions will help in achieving such and understanding.

   Doug.

    
    now cut that out!
    

    IN some states, like Maine, if your cought in an adultrous affair, you
    can loose your REAL property over it. You can be sued for 'interfiernce
    of a marriage', I know this personally, cause I have represented myself
    in my divorce and was looking for all the tools possible. 
    
    This is not a problem between two adults. Its a problem between TWO
    Military personel, and *IS* within the laws of the military. She was
    warned, she lied, she now is punished just like anyother military
    personel. Period.

       <<< Note 860.197 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "looking for deep meaning" >>>

    
   > now cut that out!
    
     who me?

    Richard! Dude! No hope at all.:)

    <reaching for Nuprin>

    Richard?

    He's referring to your father.  

    .199
    
    no!  what's-his-name and brain!

:-)

    So Brain, what are we going to do tonight? 
    Same thing we do every night Pinky... Try to take over the world!!!

    That would be Robert.

    Re .109:
    
    > Argument for linguistic precision is credible only when it is
    > accompanied by a demonstration of such precision, . . .
    
    Bull.  The goal of any reader should be to find a favorable
    interpretation of the author's words.  Ru used the word "private" in
    .109, and I have demonstrated a favorable interpretation that is
    completely in keeping with the meanings of the word.  If you decide
    that the author was not precise and hence you will choose to interpret
    his statement with a meaning that makes it false, then you are being
    disingenuous.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

I do a pretty good impersonation of pinky.  Only in private, of course.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Go for it!! Naaarf!

    >>  That would be Robert.
    
    Okay then, his father.  

    Re .180:
    
    > What is right or wrong is utterly irrelevant to the pilot's case.
    
    That sounds like what a lawyer says after the indoctrination of law
    school.  It is not true.  We do not manifest courts for the sole
    purpose of implementing legal procedures.  Legal procedures are the
    means to an end.  That end is justice.
    
    When justice says one thing and the law says another, it is the latter
    that should change to match the former, not vice-versa.
    
    Laws that are applied to some people and not others are unjust and
    should be changed.  They should be held moot by juries.
    
    > It is absolutely no defense for her to say, "Others get away with
    > it." . . . .  But the law isn't unconstitutional, because no unlawful
    > search is involved, . . .
    
    Unlawful search is hardly the only criterion for Constitutionality. 
    Another one is equal protection protection of the laws.  If, for
    example, men are usually not prosecuted while women are, then equal
    protection of the laws is being denied, and that is unconstitutional.
    
    > The question of "right" and "wrong", as to whether they even exist,
    > is unproven.
    
    Then why enforce the law?  What's "right" about that?  The law is just
    some ink on some paper; it has no physical power.  If there's no
    "wrong", then it is not wrong to disobey the law or to evade
    consequences.  It would not be wrong for a judge to ignore the law and
    dismiss a case for the hell of it.
    
    > Just because you hold to some mystical ideology that says . . .
    
    That is a straw man.  I have never given mystical justifications for
    any ethical or sociologial position.  Meanwhile, you fail to recognize
    your own ethical prejudices.  You constantly back the "law"
    uncritically.  That's an ethical position.  Yet you do not justify it
    in any way.  Given any question about how to proceed in administering
    judgment, you turn to the law as your guide.  Why?  What makes the law
    better than other choices?  The law is poisoned by human greeds, by
    politics, and by limitations of the human ability to foresee events or
    to codify behavior.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    >Laws that are applied to some people and not others are unjust and
    >should be changed.  They should be held moot by juries.
    
    	NO, the application is unjust, not the law.
    
    ed

    Re .182:
    
    > 	It most certainly _is_ relevant.
    
    Show how.
    
    > Are you choosing to ignore all that was said between .110 and .131?
    
    What was said between .110 and .131 does not change my claims.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

   point of interest: "anarchism" is an anagram of "chairmans".

    .209
    
    > The goal of any reader should be to find a favorable
    > interpretation of the author's words.
    
    That's why you're so diligently attempting to prove that Ru's wording
    was wrong and thereby drum up this potentially interminable string of
    semantic wrangling.  You could just as easily have gone with the flow
    of what we knew Ru meant, but it apparently didn't suit your purpose to
    grant any linguistic leeway.
    
    You would be more convincing if you would demonstrate a recognition of
    the fact that agreement in number between a pronoun and its antecedent
    is correct form and that a lack of such agreement is incorrect form. 
    "A person" (singular) is not "they" (plural), and asserting that the
    usage is correct does not make it so.  1 does not equal more than 1,
    except for impossibly large values of 1.  Furthermore, it is irrelevant
    how many attestations to such incorrect usage you can provide.  The
    usage is still as wrong as the equally casual usage that calls a beetle
    a bug.

  >  Bull.  The goal of any reader should be to find a favorable
  >  interpretation of the author's words.

  I guess this is were we differ then. I try to understand the authors
  meaning regardless of how it is conveyed. (This is important given RUs
  english skill level)

  To do otherwise would be disingenuous.

  

>      <<< Note 860.215 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    Show how.

	Again?  You haven't understood the point Doug Fyfe was making
	about it, which was also my point, so it's clearly of no use
	to repeat it.

 > now cut that out!

 And halt the most excitement soapbox has seen in a week!

 Not likely  :-)

    When people think you're a fool, it is better to remain silent.
    Otherwise, you'll only confirm their opinion.
    
    fm

    fm, did you get up early in the am?

Or more precisely, keep your personal opinions private.



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    .221
    
    "Tis better to have people think one a fool, then to speak up
    and remove all doubt"

	No static at all.

    I always find it fascinating that virtually any discussion in this
    forum can quickly degenerate into still another semantic rathole.
    
    It's almost as much fun as waiting for the first invocation of "Hitler"
    or "Nazi."

    nothing but booze and Elvis,
    and somebody else's favorite song

    No news over at cnn.com re any decision today by Sec. Widnall.
    
    

    Re .217:
    
    >> The goal of any reader should be to find a favorable
    >> interpretation of the author's words.
    >
    > That's why you're so diligently attempting to prove that Ru's wording
    > was wrong . . .
    
    In .114, I criticized Henderson's criticism of Ru, thus defending Ru.
    But allow me to compliment you on your excellent analytical skills
    anyway, although I would suggest a bit more practice before tackling
    some of the finer points of semantics like whose side somebody is on.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .218:
    
    > I try to understand the authors meaning regardless of how it is
    > conveyed.
    
    Trying to find a favorable interpretation IS trying to understand the
    author's meaning.  Every author intends to be correct (barring humor,
    fiction, or malice), so attempting to find an interpretation that
    yields a correct statement (and hence is favorable) IS trying to find
    the author's intent.
                        
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .219:
    
    > You haven't understood the point Doug Fyfe was making about it, which
    > was also my point, so it's clearly of no use to repeat it.
    
    So don't repeat it.  Explain it.  Use different words.  Present an
    analogy.  Make a metaphor.  So far, your notes have merely complained
    without adding anything.  Stop complaining and start presenting.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Has Brain answered the questions yet?

    
   Yes, edp, I think we are a nation of laws. I think if we pass bad laws,
 we should enforce them.  In this case, I have no idea if it is "just"
 to prosecute this woman, which is why I argued she should be discharged and
 be done with it.  She is a disgrace to the military, and her career must
 be terminated.

   I do not agree with "jury nullification".  I would convict a guilty party
 of a grossly unjust law.  But since this law is just, that's irrelevant.

   Sure, there are many reasons why the UCMJ might be unconstitutional.  If it
 is, I would not want it enforced.  But it is NOT a violation of the XIVth
 Amendment that you get convicted while somebody else gets off.  If I hack
 up my wife, would you let me off because OJ got off ?  That's drivel, and
 isn't the meaning of Amendment XIV.  And no court will find it so.

   I do not see any basis for supposing a single commisioned officer should
 have sexual rights to the enlisted people's spouses.  What you advocate
 is barbarous.  But what should I expect from a sophist...

   Why is the law "better" than other views ?  Only in that it is the current
 concensus of society.  That is, only in that it is enforced.  Since any view
 of "right" and "wrong" is a moving target, it matters much less what any
 particular person or school of thought says about it, than it does what
 the government will act on.

   bb

>      <<< Note 860.231 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>  So far, your notes have merely complained
>  without adding anything.

	So .173 was a "complaint"?  Thank you so much for your
	assessment.



	

    
    di, i think you're being dissed. you gonna take that???

    |dissed
    
    may god strike me dead if I ever seriously use this word in a sentence.

    bb, you have been dismissed.

    Re .234:
    
    > So .173 was a "complaint"?
    
    Yes, it was.  It complained that the distinction between "private" and
    "personal" was not pertinent to "Ru/Henderson" sequence.  But it did
    not explain what something meant.  It did not suggest interpretations. 
    It did not clarify.
    
    You have contributed nothing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

It's getting crowded over heah in the "unworthy ones" corner.





[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

We prefer to call it the "Mere commoner" corner.

I thank you.

    
    yeah, di just joined bb.

	i can think of a few things i could "contribute" right
	about now, but the Doctah would have to delete them. ;>

	thank you, Mr. Postpischil, for even bothering to
	address me in my total uselessness.  

 >   It did not clarify.
 >   
 >   You have contributed nothing.
 

 So, please clarify for us what your (favorable or otherwise) interpretation 
 of RUs writing is (provided below for your convenience).

!>    The military has no business on her private love life.
!>    Get real.  Or the military should get rid of all the homo.
!>    Apply 'don't ask, don't tell' policy equally.

 Is your favorable interpretation the same as what you believe to be
 RUs intended meaning?


   Doug.

RE: .244

Well, Diane, you're not contributing a darned thing to this 
discussion, but you really do look great while you're doing whatever 
it is that you ARE doing.

>  For the life of me, I cannot tell what edp is defending this officer's
> outrageous behavior for. 


  I don't believe he has done that.

  Doug.

  

I'm in the court martial camp. Once you sign on the dotted line, the
military basically owns you. She can appeal for mercy, or whatever, but
otherwise the rules is the rules, and she agreed to them freely.

    Re .245:
    
    > So, please clarify for us what your (favorable or otherwise)
    > interpretation  of RUs writing is (provided below for your
    > convenience).
    
    What do you want?  I got involved because Henderson wrongly jumped to
    the conclusion that an assertion that some behavior is private and is
    not the military's business implies there can be no standards
    whatsoever.  My interest was in showing that jump to be wrong.  Doing
    that only required that I show there _can be_ things which are private
    and that the military does not have a need to involve itself in.  I
    have done that.  I am not now interested in discussing precisely what
    is or should be private and certainly not Ru's opinion of it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .233:
    
    > . . . a single commisioned officer should have sexual rights to the
    > enlisted people's spouses.  What you advocate . . .
    
    I never said any such thing.  Since you do this repeatedly, I will not
    waste my time conversing with you.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    enough of this already!!! i've had enough. bb and di have already been
    banished to the "unworthy corner" along with what's-his-name.
    
    edp, you have done your damage today. i've never seen di humbled
    before, it's not a pretty sight. it could take months to rebuild
    her ego, and i'm talking NAPA brand parts, too boot.

	Di?  Humbled?

	BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!

	Surely you jest, Pi�ata Boy.

    re:<<< Note 860.129 by FUTURE::DDESMAISONS "Are you married or happy?" >>>
    >That will teach you to venture so cavalierly into the
    >world of the absurd.
    
    OPEN SOAPBOX
    or is it just leaving the house?

    >What do you want?

    An Understanding.

    >I got involved because Henderson wrongly jumped to
    >the conclusion that an assertion that some behavior is private and is
    >not the military's business implies there can be no standards
    >whatsoever. 

    Finally something even I can understand. Thank you.

    Given the above, Do I understand correctly that you took Hendersons
    response literally then?

    >My interest was in showing that jump to be wrong.
 
    My interest is in showing that the jump was illustrative, and in no
    way meant to be taken literally.

    If you had taken it literally, and I did not, then we understand the
    cause of the confusion.

    and finally

      > Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
      > in private behavior

   In reference to 

      > The military has no business on her private love life.

   specifically addressing matters of love lifes, You have categorized RUs 
   statement as reasonable. I would simply like to see an explaination as to
   why you believe his statement to be reasonable given it was used as the
   yardstick by which Henderson was being measured.

   
    Doug.

>    enough of this already!!! i've had enough. bb and di have already been
>    banished to the "unworthy corner" along with what's-his-name.

   And many have been complaining about how quite soapbox as been lately ....

   Being a slow day, I for one am greatful for EDPs participation :-)

 It was illustrative and not to be taken literally, as I mentioned once
 before..




 Jim

But what is important is how EDP took it, and his reasons for wanting
to make the point he was trying to make.

Only he can address those issues so that we might fully comprehend what
he has tried to communicate.

Doug.

    
    sounds like a star trek script.
    

  By the way, the UCMJ was adopted 1950, when Harry signed it.  Contrary
 to popular misconception, it is generally thought fairer to the defendant
 than many civilian institutions, such as a grand jury.  There are several
 unique aspects - the role of the commander, nonjudicial punishment,
 US Court of Military Appeals, and the issue of jurisdiction.  In general,
 the military justice appeal chain only meets the civilian one at the
 SCOTUS, not in federal district court or state supreme courts.

  The Constitutional basis is stated in the powers of Congress, which
 include the power to regulate the armed forces, and is inherent in the
 President of the United States as commander in chief.  There are indeed
 on-duty and off-duty times in military life, but the UCMJ always applies,
 as does military discipline.  You cannot refuse a lawful order because
 you are off duty.

  Do not confuse "military justice" with "martial law", which is a completely
 different thing - law affecting civilians, but administered by an occupying
 army, as in the South, 1865-76.

   .257  <chuckle>

    re: .257 and .259
    
    Oh, please?
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .257

Right. To quote William Shatner on SNL: "GET A LIFE!"

   .260       -< No matter how quite, mb2LoN.... >-


	no matter how quite?

    
    It doesn't seem quite to me.  But I read that many have been
    complaining how quite soapbox as been lately.
    
    								-mr. bill

	so we should quite while we're ahead is what
	you're saying?

Quite!

    ya! Is that what you're saying? Answer the question!

  .266  you're not complaining, are you?

	It's the re-quite I'm concerned about.

    I think that's what I'm saying.

|	so we should quite while we're ahead is what
|	you're saying?
    
    Not quite.
    
    								-mr. bill

Quite you!

   leaving aside, for the moment, those who think this law should be
 repealed, or not enforced, or found unconstitutional (none of which
 is very likely to happen), and also those who think the trial should
 continue, I am curious about a different issue : some have suggested
 that rather than a discharge, an administrative reassignment to, say,
 Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, might be a more practical response.

   I don't see it.  You can hardly assign her where there are no men...

  bb

I kinda like the idea of stripping her of her commission, pulling her
from the flight line, and keeping her as an enlisted person for the
remainder of her commitment, followed by an administrative discharge.

This way, she can serve out her commitment and sleep with any single enlisted
person she wishes.

Doug.

    
    /I don't see it.  You can hardly assign her where there are no men...
    
    keep grinding your favorite ax, bb.
    

    It has been asserted, repeatedly, by senior AF officials, including the
    Chief of Staff of the AF, that adultery, per se, is NOT the critical
    or driving issue in this case.
    
    Those seem to be fraternization, disobeying direct orders, and lying to
    AF investigators.  
    
    Absent sexual politics, this officer would have been cashiered out
    without a squeak.

    Re .253:
    
    > Do I understand correctly that you took Hendersons response literally
    > then? . . .  My interest is in showing that the jump was illustrative,
    > and in no way meant to be taken literally.
    
    Yes, I interpreted it literally.  It seems pretty silly to say such a
    thing illustratively.  What does it illustrate?
    
    > I would simply like to see an explaination as to why you believe his
    > statement to be reasonable given it was used as the yardstick by which
    > Henderson was being measured.
    
    Most sexual activity has NO effect on the rest of the world.  That's
    why it is reasonable for it to be private.
                            
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                              

    .276
    
    > Most sexual activity has NO effect on the rest of the world.  That's
    > why it is reasonable for it to be private.
    
    Irrelevant.  This isn't "most" sexual activity; it's sexual activity of
    a sort that could, in time of war, lead one of the participants to make
    an improper decision.  If that participant happened to be the one who's
    in the military and that decision had disastrous military consequences,
    would the sexual activity still have no effect on the greater world?  I
    think this possibility is the reason for the rule.

  most adultery has LOTS of affect on others

  bb

    .273 Doug,
    
    IF it is a criminal offence, and if she has to serve time for the
    crime. Serve her time in military prision, just like the men have to do
    if they do wrong.
    

    Snaaarf Brain! 

    Re .277:
    
    > This isn't "most" sexual activity; . . .
    
    The statements at issue did not specify "this" -- they referred to
    private lives.  Again you interpret the statements to mean something
    that is incorrect.  I choose a more favorable interpration.
    
    > . . . it's sexual activity of a sort that could, in time of war, lead
    > one of the participants to make an improper decision.
    
    That is just a rationalization.  Telling a person to stop, or not to
    have, a relationship with somebody they care for can just as easily
    cause a person to make an improper decision.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

The Air Force has denied Kelly Flinn an honorable discharge, but will let her
resign rather than face court-martial.

    .281
    
    Your final sentence leads to the ineluctable conclusion that it makes
    no difference whether this officer was or was not told to cease her
    forbidden relationship.  She has demonstrated an inability - for
    whatever reason - to follow the rules that she agreed, in writing, to
    follow.  She should clearly be removed from her position in the chain
    of command - she is not a fit field officer.  Whether she is fit to
    clean latrines at a boot camp somewhere is material for some other
    discussion.

    so, can we put this discussion to bed now?

I thought that was where it started....

Glen is Glenn's straight man.

So this is our final flinn?




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    So, I guess, there is hope for reconcile with the civilian and the
    other com'ed airforce woman. 

    George, I put forth that you, in fact, did not survive a spa of any
    sort, cruel or otherwise.

    Ha! I did and do despite my enimies!:) Fact is that I can tell you that
    I have survived bankruptcy, divorce, deccie-ism, and a host of other
    hostile enviorments.:)

RE: .286

A straight man is supposed to provide the set-up BEFORE the funny 
retort.

Karen, I'll bet that deciphering George's replies is an even more 
strenuous [strenuouser?] workout than aerobics.

    Only here can you be set up after the fact... or just setup. Better
    that than knocked down. Arrrk!!
    

>    Better that than knocked down. Arrrk!!


No, ah can't say that I agree with that all of the time.

Ex-Lt Flinn will be given a "general discharge in lieu of court-martial."

Those words at the end are the kicker.  As a result she will lose all
possible veterans benefits as well as the right to fly in the Air
National Guard.

In addition, she now owes the Air Force $18,000 for her education.

Her friends in Congress are already making noise about a waiver.

/john

    
    She was offered a package yesterday as an alternative to a
    CM. While it isn't painless, it is far less painful than
    a CM.
    
    I really don't like the idea since there are people who
    have spent time in prison for similar offenses.
    
    The AF will be better after she leaves.
    
    Doug.

    #Most sexual activity has NO effect on the rest of the world.  That's
    #why it is reasonable for it to be private.
    
    !>    The military has no business on her private love life.
    
    RUs statment does not talk about most sexual activity.
    It speaks directly to sexual activity in the military.
    Such a boundry makes his statements naive at best, absurd at worst,
    and certainly not reasonable. 

    I'm amazed that you can't see the absurdity in RUs statement
    but can see it in Henderson's.
    
    >Yes, I interpreted it literally.  It seems pretty silly to say such a
    >thing illustratively.  What does it illustrate?
    
    Not to be too flip, but everyone else seemed to understand his
    intended meaning. I'd hate to think your literal approach to 
    communications is somehow a limiting factor to the success of
    same. 
    
    People are not computers which all act in the same precise manner.
    You can't expect all people to express themselves in the same
    manner.
   
    Doug.

      <<< Note 860.167 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Confusing "no right to evade punishment" with "no right to complain" is
>    not a slight error; it is a gross devaluation of the right to free
>    speech.
 
	A person that enters into an agreement with knowledge and forethought
	and then complains, is merely stupid. The person that defends their
	complaint is an idiot.

Jim

>    People are not computers which all act in the same precise manner.
>    You can't expect all people to express themselves in the same
>    manner.

"Can't"?  You forgot who you were talking to, apparently.  The word you 
were looking for is "shouldn't".

    did you lose this? "m"

    The spin has started:

    Flinn's lawyer blamed the AF for bringing the press into the picture.

    When asked why Flinn accepted a general discharge he claimed a 4 star
    general poisoned the well of jury officers by publicly stating he would
    not allow an AD to close this case.

    When asked about her admitting to the charges the lawyer stated she
    pleaded not guilty and wanted to go CM to expose just how badly
    the brass has handled this case.

    When asked about accepting a discharge that generally states the
    negative behavior outweighed the positive contributions to the
    corp, he said there was little alternative because she would have never
    gotten a fair trail.

    So, how many folks out there in TV swallowed the bait hook, line, and
    sinker?

    Then there is a Senator claiming she was wronged by the brass, that a
    non-judiciary method for handling the case should have been pursued
    (it was, and she screwed that up too).

    I can't wait for the movie!

    Doug.

>    I can't wait for the movie!

 
 I'm sure they're working on it now.  A perfect person to play the woman
 formerly known as Lt. Flinn would be the woman who played George's fiance
 on Seinfeld, though she is probably a bit older than Ms. Flinn






 Jim

RE: .300

Oops, silly me.  Let me try that again:


"Can't"?  You forgot who you were talking to, apparently.  The word you 
were looking for ism "shouldn't".

    <THWACK!>

Thank you, sir ... may I have another?

    <THWACK!>

        The doctah is very accommodating today.

    Today and every day.

    how about a little dinner and dancing tonight then?

	Bet he has more <THWACK>s left !

    May I partake in the session of thwacks?

    ooo, okay.

    *THWACK*
    
    Ah.

    Meg Ryan should play the part of Lt. Flinn IMO.  Ms. Flinn will be able
    to repay the Air Force after she a.) signs her book deal, and b.) 
    negotiates the mini-series rights.  She needs not fly in ANG.  I'll lay
    odds (oo-er) that she will be able to land a first seat in the airline
    industry somewhere.
    
    Brian

| <<< Note 860.291 by MRPTH1::16.34.80.132::slab "[email protected]" >>>


| A straight man is supposed to provide the set-up BEFORE the funny
| retort.

	So I'm a little late.... sue me!

    >I'll lay odds 
    
     Brian-
    
     You're not in college anymore. /hth

    let it be known that somebody ELSE, not me, mentioned Meg Ryan.

Yes, only because your other hand was holding the phone to your ear.

              er, hanh?
	      /
	  oO)-.
	 /__  _\       
	 \  \(  |      
	  \__|\ {                                             
	  '  '--'   

	Doesn't matter.  You're still to blame 8^).

    Yes, I discovered her first, after all.

	Yes, and you haven't stopped bleating about her since.

    neither have you.

	At least I keep my hand out of my lap when 
	*I* do it.

    I'm sure your partner appreciates that.

    
      as I expected.  Not a matter of right/wrong or good/bad or
     harming others/not harming others.  not a matter of punishment,
     or of equal "protection" or of any kind of rights.
    
      It's a matter of providing for the common defense.  The only thing
     that mattered was to get a demonstrably unreliable person out of
     command of major weapons of war.
    
      The resolution is fundamentally sound.
    
      bb

    But bb, I don't think these people understand what a 'demonstrably
    unreliable person' is. How bout a possible example.
    
    hq: tango zebra echo, did you drop that nuke on your target?
    
    LT: yes! The bomb has been dropped.
    
    hq: then why the hell are there missles in flight towards us?
    
    Lt: Ooops! I lied!
    
    

 a major development in this story.  Pilot gets general discharge and
 escapes corporal punishment in a private matter.

    It will not be the first time it has happened. Ask many of the Former
    heavy metal that ran the Navy. Good news, no more bad guys in the Navy
    reguarding the 'tail-hook'. Bad news, many of these men, had/have
    experience dealing with the worlds bad boys like Saddam Insane. Bad
    news is if we have to do another Desert Storm, we might be looking at
    allot of dead to burry in our graves. Many dead men and Women....
    

    |allot of dead to burry in our graves.
    
    as opposed to what?

> Many dead men and Women....
    

	people of gender.

>    |allot of dead to burry in our graves.
>    
>    as opposed to what?

George is opposed to spellcheckers.

	I'm dying over here.

    Spelling or not.:)
    
    as opposed to the loss's or the DOA or the body count of the last time
    we were on the sands of the mid-east.
    

    
      Oh, and back on the question of "what's the point" if it isn't to
     determine right/wrong and good/bad.  Of course, that IS one of the
     points of our Constitutional system and our laws, but it is only one,
     which must vie with the others.  The six goals of the framers are
     stated in the preamble.  Remember, these are a statement of purpose,
     and are not justiciable, and I doubt the order was intended to show
     precedence.  They are :
    
      (1) to form a more perfect union
      (2) establish justice
      (3) insure domestic tranquility
      (4) provide for the common defense
      (5) promote the general welfare
      (6) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
    
      Now anybody with modest creativity can show that these six goals
     can conflict in practice.  For example, (2) can conflict with (6)
     as regards freedom of the press vs. a fair trial, and all of them
     compete for finite resources.  Which takes precedence depends on the
     particular matter you are dealing with - they're just goals.
    
      I suppose what we mean by "justice" is that we hope that our system
     of laws, police, courts, and corrections gives as many people as
     possible what they deserve.  What people deserve is a matter of
     opinion, to be decided by the society as a whole, through politics, or
     in a particular case, through a jury's application.  I'll grant that
     this provision indicates that good/bad or right/wrong was ONE of the
     six concerns of the founders.
    
      But in the case of a commander of a nuclear B-52, I would argue
     that providing for the common defense takes precedence even over
     good/bad right/wrong "justice" considerations.  A ferocious defense
     is no mean asset.  It is worth some sacrifice of justice if the
     result is to enhance our common defense.  That's why they put that
     phrase in there, right up with the other goals.
    
      bb

Tailhook?  

Bad example George.   

The navy officer heading the office of enquiry was himself
court-martialled for allegedly sexually harassing two female
subordinates.  He was acquitted.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    bb is always saying that Society can or should decide. Society is just
    a word that describes a particular circumstance or condition. It isn't a
    thing that can decide anything. I can't touch a society, I can't have
    society as a pet, society has no brain, no physical attributes. It is a
    metaphoric word created so the individual mind can grasp the concept it
    describes. It can't think and can't make decisions. Only individuals
    think, react and make decisions. 

    
      um, we vote, Tom.  It's called democracy.  Sometimes, by referendum,
     we vote on the issue directly.  Sometimes, we elect representatives
     who can look at the problems full time, and then vote.
    
      That's what the USA is all about.  Important questions about your
     life are made by a concensus of your fellows, even over your
     objections.  The only power you have is to convince them to vote
     your way.  You cannot defy them without the people's representatives
     descending upon you with overwhelming force.
    
      bb

    .336 Example or not. It is something WE will face, good bad, or
    indiffer. It is something that I hope we do not have to deal with. And
    it will be interesting to see how they will or will not preform with
    the new administation.
    

    
      Oh, and another thing.  "Society" is a concept word, sure, but
     it is not "metaphoric".  You cannot touch gravity, or courage,
     or the number seventeen, or libertarianism.  All of those only
     exist inside brains.  But the mere fact that a noun represents a
     concept instead of an object does NOT mean it is any less real.
    
      bb

>        <<< Note 860.340 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

	Right.  

As much as I trust Di and bb, this opportunity that Tom has
brough us is too good to pass up.  I have decided that henceforth
I shall wear no clothes.  If society does not like that, then they
can get stuffed.  Why should I kow-tow to a metaphor?



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Well, he never mentioned that you could paint a society.

    
    ooh.  could get a bit dicey in the winter.
    

    .343
    >Well, he never mentioned that you could paint a society.
    
    You can paint a town red, but its hell to find the kurtains to match.:)
    

    .342 Member of AANR are we? Funny about these card carring nudest...
    where do you put a card if there isn't any pockets?;)
    

    {thud}

<hatless, shrugged>



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

  .342  go for it, i say.

    >><hatless, shrugged>
    
    aaaahhh.. dduuuude. Shouldn't it be, hatless, cloths-less,, smile,
    shrugged?:)

    .342 Yha Make a fashion statement! Show em what cha got! Put the
    Kennedy's to shame!:) 

RE: .350

I should add a "whoosh" comment here, but that's generally understood 
to be the case anyways.

Re: .338, bb
    
>um, we vote, Tom.  It's called democracy.  Sometimes, by referendum,
>we vote on the issue directly.  Sometimes, we elect representatives
>who can look at the problems full time, and then vote.
>
>That's what the USA is all about.  Important questions about your
>life are made by a concensus of your fellows, even over your
>objections.  The only power you have is to convince them to vote
>your way.  You cannot defy them without the people's representatives
>descending upon you with overwhelming force.

Over the years governments have used the non sequitur of "being good for 
society" to slowly set up systems that allow the government, and those who use 
it to make a living, control individuals. Government control always means 
the control of individuals by force. Communism, fascism, socialism, and 
democracy, which you describe above, are political systems that survive by 
force. Granted, democracy is generally less destructive or less malevolent 
than the other three systems of oppression. However, all four political 
systems operate to some degree on the same concepts of external "authority" 
and unearned power backed by "legalized" force. Allowing citizens to vote on 
these concepts is a ploy that sucks in the value producing citizens, 
allowing their individual freedom and rights to be removed by force.  

Democracy is rooted neither in justice nor in the protection of individual 
rights, but is rooted in the uncompetitive principle of "authorities" with 
power to force the deemed "will" of the majority onto specific individuals. 
(The United States was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic based on 
constitutional law forged between democratic myths and free-choice, 
competitive-market principles. Today, most of the remaining nonforce, 
free-choice, competitive elements of freedom in the United States are being 
replaced with uncompetitive fascist or socialistic elements of force.) A
business-like, free-choice, competitive system is the only political system 
based on logic, justice, growth, and earned values rather than on feelings, 
force, stagnation, and usurpation of values. Of all political systems, only 
the nonforce, free-choice competitive system rejects the concept of 
uncompetitive "authority" system of force, threat of force, and fraud. And only
competitive, free markets fully recognize the sovereignty of the individual 
and the right to his or her own body, life, and earned property. All 
professional politicians and powercrats hate and fear free-choice competition,
because free-choice competition would drive them from their dishonest careers 
and bogus livelihoods.
            

Note that the word "adultery" does not appear in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.  Flinn was charged with an action detrimental to "good order and
discipline."

From the nooz:

  The Pentagon has developed standards for adultery prosecution.  The key 
  is not just also an extramarital affair but one that has an impact on the 
  military -- such as an affair involving an enlistee or, as in the Flinn 
  case, the husband of a service member.

  "If a military member commits adultery with a civilian having no 
  connection to the military, defense counsel could show there is no 
  discernible effect on 'good order and discipline' of the military," the 
  guidelines state.  "Military appellate courts have upheld such cases and 
  dismissed the punishment."

  Thus, Flinn's mistake in connection with the adultery charge had less to 
  do with what she did than with whom she did it.

/john

    Re .283:
    
    > Your final sentence leads to the ineluctable conclusion that it makes
    > no difference whether this officer was or was not told to cease her
    > forbidden relationship.
    
    It's not ineluctable.  I know, because I elucted it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .297:
    
    >> Yes, I interpreted it literally.  It seems pretty silly to say such a
    >> thing illustratively.  What does it illustrate?
    >
    > Not to be too flip, but everyone else seemed to understand his
    > intended meaning.
    
    That is too flip.  It doesn't answer the question.  What does it
    illustrate?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    >That is too flip.  It doesn't answer the question.  What does it
    >illustrate?
    
    The anal retentive capacity of some of our participants  :-)
    
    More seriously, the answer has been posted twice. You may not
    like the answer, but it is there. (something about expose absurdity
    with absurdity...)
    
    Doug (now we go one the tangent of what illustrate means ... who
          has websters handy?)
    
    

    Re .357:

    > More seriously, the answer has been posted twice.

    Where?  If it has been posted, why don't you simply answer the
    question by copying the answer or giving the note number.  (If the note
    is long, also indicate where within it the answer is.)

    > . . . something about expose absurdity wit absurdity . . .

    As I noted elsewhere, exaggeration is not reduction to absurdity.


    				-- edp


Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 Somehow I don't think this former Air Force Lt. is going to disappear
 from the scene very quickly.



 Jim

   .359  James, when you say "disappear", do you mean that literally?

    
    choose your words _carefully_!
    

 <slaps hand to forehead>

  <slaps hand to forehead>



  (secret greeting sign of the not-so-brilliant)

        > More seriously, the answer has been posted twice.
    
        >Where?
    
    	try .124 for starters ...

    <slaping hand to forehead, wiping neaderhal bloodly knuckys>
    

    
    "neaderhal bloodly knuckys".
    
    Do I ever need a drink after reading that.
    
    

    Re .364:
    
    > try .124 for starters ...
    
    According to .124, .110 is "illustrating absurdity with absurdity". 
    That is an attempt to use the technique of reduction to absurdity.  The
    proper use of reduction to absurdity is to show that one claim
    logically implies another statement, and that the consequential
    statement is absurd.  Logically, a claim that implies something absurd
    is itself absurd.
    
    When this technique is used, the consequential statement is used
    literally, not figuratively or illustratively.  Thus, if your statement
    in .124 is correct, the statements in .110 were made literally, and my
    interpretation was correct.
    
    In order for a statement to be non-literal, it has to be some sort of
    metaphor, analogy, or idiom.  It has to mean something other than the
    dictionary denotations of the words.  If you cannot produce such a
    figurative meaning, then my initial interpretation of the words as
    literal was correct.
    
    
				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 the statements in .110 were not made literally.

    Re .368:
    
    The question remains:  What do they mean?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Mz Deb, i was howling (neanderthal-like).

   jimmah, he jes ain't-a gonna git it.

    With all he has invested in not getting it, for him to do an about face
    and get it after all these notes is about as likely as certain people
    giving up the last word.

    I don't mind the military having standards.  They probably should.
    However, I want them evenly and consistently applied.  No friends
    in Congress, no "sweeping under the rug" no "boys will be boys"
    or "girls will be girls".  Court martial her if she's guilty.
    And make darn sure you court marshall the next 4 star general
    that does the same thing.  Toss 'em all on their ear.  Men and
    women, regardless of rank.  Be ruthless in the application of
    the rules.  There may not be much of a military left when they
    are done, but we will have equality.  And then maybe they can
    build a military for men AND women from there.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

    >The question remains:  What do they mean?
    
! That's right.  There should be absolutely no standards of behavior or 
! discipline in the military.  People should be able to do whatever they
! want, whenever they want, with whomever they want.  And by golly, if they
! don't feel flying on a given day, they shouldn't have to.  Who the heck
! to those superior officers think they are anyway?  Why the whole concept
! of superior officers is damaging to one's self esteem.
    
    The meaning: The inmates should be in charge of the asylum.
    The purpose: To alert the reader to an absurd position by
    		 taking that position to an even more absurd extreme.
    
    The result : 99% of the readers got the message.
    
    Doug.          

   .374  literally 99%?

    	The military is not a democracy. If you have ever been a member of
    the United States Armed Forces you would understand that. The military
    is a dictatorship. That is the only way to have troops listen to
    orders. If a officer or enlisted personal do not listen to the orders
    they should be punished is some way. This officer got off easily. The
    only reason she did was because they got politicans involved, who
    didn't not the full story. Disobeying a direct order and lying under
    oath, are serious offences. Specially for a person in charge of a
    nuclear missile aircraft.

    ...raises hand as a part of the 99%. (without Doug's help)

    Raises 99% of a hand.

<nails only 1% of hand to desk>
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Re .374:
    
    > The meaning: The inmates should be in charge of the asylum.
    > The purpose: To alert the reader to an absurd position by
    >              taking that position to an even more absurd extreme.
    
    Once again, that is "reduction to absurdity".  That is in fact the
    meaning I FIRST gave note .110 when I responded in .114.  Then we get a
    bunch of crap entered about how it wasn't meant literally.  But how was
    it meant?  According to you now, exactly the way I interpreted it.
    
    These claims about it was meant figuratively or "illustratively" turn
    out just to be bull.  There isn't any other meaning.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    So if 860.110 is considered to contain a literal meaning, then
    what of .111?
    
    Doug. 

    
      um, guys.  they settled.  it's over.
    
      bb

    No no no no no!  It is not over.  We have to labor over semantic intent
    and linguistic precision in long dead notes until there is a clear victor! 
    Besides, we still have the book deal, the movie deal, the mini-series
    deal, the talk show circuit, and the expose's of other officers guilty of
    similar charges though not rightfully tried.  This is far from over.  

|   it's over.
    
    Bahahahahahaha.
    
    								-mr. bill

    :-)

   Frankly, I think everybody's correct - it's just that the term "private
   love life", in .109, was interpreted differently by the participants
   in the discussion.  Some took it to mean "personal life" and there's no
   reason to believe that interpretation is incorrect.

   n-s-b

    
    	What do you think you're trying to do, Diane ... be diplomatic?
    
    	This is SOAPBOX!!  There's no diplomacy in SOAPBOX!!
    

    
    hey, n-s-b!  looks like you're due for another 
    good humbling! ;-)
    

    Diplomacy? Weee have no stinking diplomacy!:) Wee need no stinking
    diplomacy.;)

   .387  no, i actually believe what i said, shawnster.

   .388  yeah, it sure as heck won't surprise me. ;>

    
    gee, di. Are you trying to summon up the demons from below??? 
    you not only are naive and unworthy, your incredibly brave as well.

    
    Her what?
    

    AskERIC InfoGuide. LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT. Date compiled: December 11,
    1995 Compiled by: Paul Hrycaj Last Update: December 11, 1995 INDEX 1)
    Introduction 2).
    http://ericir.syr.edu/cgi-bin/markup_infoguides/
    Alphabetical_List_of_InfoGuides/Language_Dvlpt-12.95
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

   > Once again, that is "reduction to absurdity".  That is in fact the
   > meaning I FIRST gave note .110 when I responded in .114.  Then we get a
   > bunch of crap entered about how it wasn't meant literally.  But how was
   > it meant?  According to you now, exactly the way I interpreted it.
    
   It's intended meaning and its literal meaning are two different things.
   It being a facetious remark, one would not expect to walk away with its 
   literal meaning.

From .114

   > Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
   > in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
   > standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.

    Looks to me like you took it literally, when it was a facetious remark.
    In the process, you defended as reasonable and absurd remark. 

    >These claims about it was meant figuratively or "illustratively" turn
    >out just to be bull.  There isn't any other meaning.

    The source of the bull is quite evident ....

    Doug.

    
      do not confuse "absurd" with "ridiculous".  "absurd" means
     self-contradictory, violating it's own assumptions.  It does
     NOT mean "flying in the face of the facts", which is more
     "ridiculous".  A sign at a restaraunt that says, "Only those
     in rabbit costumes will be served," is ridulous, but it is
     not absurd.  A sign saying, "Do not read this sign," is absurd.
    
      bb

Websters has the absolute gall to use ridiculous in the definition
of absurd and vice versa.

Puzzling, I tell you.




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
      <sigh>  yes, Colin, that's modern usage - English is declining
     into fuzziness like everything else...
    
      bb

    aggravate now means irritate and vice-versa.

    Its enuf to literally make you wanna go "I give up!"

    
    	Aggravate means vice-versa?
    
    	Why doesn't anybody tell me these things?
    

A dictionary merely represents a point in the evolution of
language according to common usage - not the other way around.
The is not and never was any intent to nail a language to
a wall.  Language is fuzzy, always has been.

It's fuzzy because it's an artifact of the brain, which thrives
on fuzzy.  The recent advances in artificial intelligence came about
when we stopped thinking numerical logic and started thinking
fuzzy logic.

Precision in language is only useful up to a point.  Beyond that
point you start to constrain creative thought rather than facilitate
it.  How woyld you express a new concept in a language that does
not yet have the precise words?  A number of different strategies
spring to mind, from neologism to snake-words.

You want precision in language, learn Latin - it ain't evolving any
more.  Not much, anyway.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    oh, don't know... i always felt that the dictionary's role was to keep
    up with language, as you stated, but to also provide a consistent base
    of definition and usage of established words. without the latter,
    language would not serve its purpose. 

>        <<< Note 860.396 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>
>                           -< careful with terms... >-

>      do not confuse "absurd" with "ridiculous".  "absurd" means
>     self-contradictory, violating it's own assumptions. 

	its

    Re .395:
    
    > Looks to me like you took it literally, when it was a facetious
    > remark.
    
    Looks to me like you are confusing facetious and subjunctive or
    literal and figurative.  As it turns out, the words were meant with
    their literal meanings -- in the subjunctive mood.
    
    My initial response was correct, and no alternative interpretation has
    been presented.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    > Looks to me like you took it literally, when it was a facetious
    > remark.

	Exactly.  Jim was clearly being facetious.

    
    	"Clearly"?  Not to everybody, apparently.
    

>    oh, don't know... i always felt that the dictionary's role was to keep
>    up with language, as you stated, but to also provide a consistent base
>    of definition and usage of established words. without the latter,
>    language would not serve its purpose. 

Without dictionaries that prescribe definition and usage, language wouldn't
serve its purpose?  What about languages for which there are _no_ dictionaries?

Modern dictionaries attempt to be purely descriptive.  Lexicographers who
want to prescribe usage use mechanisms like "usage notes" and descriptions
like "non-standard" and "slang."

Marry an 'tis the way the world kens too!  But soft, had
not these foul lexicographers plied their wares, we would
harken to a more noble tongue.



 
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

>      <<< Note 860.407 by BUSY::SLAB "Audiophiles do it 'til it hertz!" >>>

    
>    	"Clearly"?  Not to everybody, apparently.

	Did I say "to everybody"?  No, I didn't.

        hth

    

Some of you guys are evyl smaht.













[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    	RE: .410
    
        >Did I say "to everybody"?  No, I didn't.
    
    	No, you didn't ... I did.  In .407, as a matter of fact.
    

>	Exactly.  Jim was clearly being facetious.

   And Eric knows this. He's just waiting for someone to state it
   in a fashion he deems 'accurate' before accepting it. Or at least
   that's my take.

   Should he want a passage to be taken literally, he need only read .111

   Maybe he's taking dancing lessons from Mr. Bill !

   Doug.

    > <sigh>  yes, Colin, that's modern usage - English is declining
    >into fuzziness like everything else...
    
    It's OK as long as everything is getting warm as well.  :) 

    
    	RE: .413
    
        >Maybe he's taking dancing lessons from Mr. Bill !
    
    	It's tough to dance when they BOTH want to lead.
    

    
    what are you trying to say, slab? that both are headstrong and
    stubborn?? well man, speak up.

    .408 what about it? are you trying to make some point or just being
         absurd?

    .402
    
    > You want precision in language, learn Latin - it ain't evolving any
    > more.  Not much, anyway.
    
    Don't tell that to the 50,000+ people who use it on a daily basis,
    including the Yurpeans who broadcast a daily Latin news program and the
    other Yurpeans who publish a Latin newspaper.  And I'm not referring to
    anyone in the Vatican, whose official newspaper is in Italian.
    
    You want precision in language, use numbers.  All natural languages,
    Latin included, are more or less imprecise.  Take the following Latin:
    
    Hoc dicto, hanc notam ponam.
    
    The phrase "Hoc dicto" is an ablative absolute, and it could mean any
    of the following:
    
    That having been said
    Since that has been said
    Because that has been said
    Although that has been said

    
    	RE: .418
    
    	Anybody who detects any sort of difference between the four sent-
    	ences at the end of that reply is almost certainly a dork, to the
    	tenth degree.
    
    	8^)
    

    I say they replace latin with Esperanto.

    not much hope of that eh?

The point was that Latin is not evolving in the same way that
other highy-used natural languages are.   The "English"
of Beowulf, (or that of Chaucer, Bill he bard, or Boswell)
bears very little resemblence to modern English.  No one has
to update Latin dictionaries just because of radically changed
usage.   

Besides, if I wanted "absolute" precision in a language,  I
could have invoked any one of a number of programming languages.
Which is what Orwell was doing when he conceived of newspeak.





[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    .419
    
    You discern no difference between "because" and "although"?  I suggest
    you consult a dictionary.  Even the crap AHD will help you.
    
    Nonne dissimilitudinem inter "because" et "although" discernis? 
    Admoneo ut tu grammatiacum consulas.  Vel sterceum AHD tibi auxilium
    feret.

    >you consult a dictionary.  Even the crap AHD will help you.
    
    Maybe he's using the Jerk M-W instead.

>     <<< Note 860.423 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>

	golly gee whiz.  almost as impressive as watching Mr. Postpischil
	or Herr Braucher do math.  almost.

  In .114, edp said this :

    Jumping from the reasonable statement that the military has no business
    in private behavior to the absurd statement that there should be no
    standards does not advance your argument and does discredit you.
    
  The statement that the military has no business in private behavior may
 or may not be reasonable, but it is certainly incorrect, by law, and the
 courts have upheld virtually every intrusion into so-called private
 behavior of uniformed personnel.  The UCMJ, passed by Congress, signed
 by the President, and upheld by the SCOTUS, says the military DOES have
 such business.  I think what edp meant was, "the reasonable statement that
 the military OUGHT to have no business, etc."  That is opinion, and a
 minority one, at that.  Whether it is a reasonable opinion is colored by
 one's war experience, if any, in my opinion.  I think it unreasonable.

  The statement that "there should be no standards" was intended, it seemed
 to me as a reader of .110, as ironic hyperbole, a deprecation of the
 so-called reasonableness contention, by carrying it to great length.
 While edp apparently thinks that the contention that "there should be
 no standards" in the military is ridiculous (and so do I), I thought he
 erred by claiming it was "absurd".  Personally, I DO NOT think the
 contention that the military should have no standards is "absurd", but
 I have to admit that in the modern "weak" definition of absurd, that is,
 meaning "ridiculous", I would agree with him.  That's not what I mean
 when I say "absurd".  I would have said "ridiculous".  By the way, there
 are people who argue there should be no standards in the military.  There
 are people who argue there should be no military.  Neither strike me as
 "absurd", just incorrect.

  By the way, I disagree that the irony fails to advance the argument, but
 admit that it isn't the very best irony, and so doesn't advance it very
 far.  I disagree totally with the claim that the use of irony does (or even
 can) discredit a debater.  It is a mere technique, and no technique in
 debate discredits the person using it.  Poor use of a technique can lower
 the probability of success in convincing an opponent, but it raises no
 ethical question.  It's only a matter of poor execution.

  bb

   .426   yow.  Billbob is good.  oh yes.

Bravo bb. 

Keep up the good work. We are all with you on this and anything else you may
argue against edp.

					-Jay

>                    <<< Note 860.428 by EDSCLU::JAYAKUMAR >>>

>We are all with you on this and anything else you may
>argue against edp.

	Not all of us.

Jay and his tiger friends.

  .430  <chortle>

    
    re .428
    
    	Boy, I sure do dislike blanket statements like this.
    
    
    	ed

>           <<< Note 860.432 by SUBSYS::NEUMYER "Here's your sign" >>>

	ayup.  not to mention that the likelihood of Mr. Postpischil
	being correct in any given argument is extremely high.  or at
	least that's been my observation.


	n-s-b

The 'boxer who picks a fight with Eric has only themself to blame.

He's the most bestest!


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    colin, i thought we taught you better.

    
    di, what's n-s-b stand for?

    
>>>>    I say they replace latin with Esperanto.

	RE: .420

	Good point, Dawn.  So that you can start replacing Latin with 
	Esperanto, here are two sets of translations that you will 
	find useful.  There is a certain amount of overlap in these 
	two resources and you will no doubt be pleased to find that you 
	can now replace the archaic Latin phrase "Fac me cocleario vomere!" 
	with the more contemporary Esperanto phrase "Bu^so^stopu min per 
	kulero!"

		- ken

P.S.  Vescere bracis meis!

	Slightly Less Common Latin Phrases
	==================================

Vacca foeda
Stupid cow

Die dulci fruere.
Have a nice day.

Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de cane debeo congredi.
Excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.

Raptus regaliter
Royally screwed

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!
If you can read this sign, you can get a good job in the fast-paced, high-paying world of Latin!

Sona si Latine loqueris.
Honk if you speak Latin.

Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!
Don't you dare erase my hard disk!

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.

Gramen artificiosum odi.
I hate Astroturf.

Furnulum pani nolo.
I don't want a toaster.

Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
I think some people in togas are plotting against me.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
I'm not interested in your dopey religious cult.

Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo.
Don't call me, I'll call you.

Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules.
If I were you, I wouldn't walk in front of any catapults.

Canis meus id comedit.
My dog ate it.

Illiud Latine dici non potest.
You can't say that in Latin.

Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
Seen any good movies lately?

Nullo metro compositum est.
It doesn't rhyme.

Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
I don't care. If it doesn't rhyme, it isn't a poem.

Fac ut gaudeam.
Make my day.

Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
Those green pants go so well with that pink shirt and the plaid jacket!

Visne saltare? Viam Latam Fungosam scio.
Do you want to dance? I know the Funky Broadway.

Re vera, potas bene.
Say, you sure are drinking a lot.

Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
May barbarians invade your personal space!

Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant!
May conspirators assassinate you in the mall!

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!

Radix lecti
Couch potato

Quo signo nata es?
What's your sign?

Romani quidem artem amatoriam invenerunt.
You know, the Romans invented the art of love.

O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
Oh! More! Go on! Yes! Ooh! Ummm!

Spero nos familiares mansuros.
I hope we'll still be friends.

Mellita, domi adsum.
Honey, I'm home.

Tam exanimis quam tunica nehru fio.
I am as dead as the nehru jacket.

Ventis secundis, tene cursum.
Go with the flow.

Totum dependeat.
Let it all hang out.

Te precor dulcissime supplex!
Pretty please with a cherry on top!

Magister Mundi sum!
I am the Master of the Universe!

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Gag me with a spoon!

Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
I can't hear you. I have a banana in my ear.

Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
Is that a scroll in your toga, or are you just happy to see me?

Prehende uxorem meam, sis!
Take my wife, please!

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Nihil est-in vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.
That's nothing-in a previous life I was a Roman Emperor.

Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est.
Yes, that is a very large amount of corn.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem!
Stand aside plebians! I am on imperial business.

Oblitus sum perpolire clepsydras!
I forgot to polish the clocks!

Vescere bracis meis.
Eat my shorts.

Sic faciunt omnes.
Everyone is doing it.

Fac ut vivas.
Get a life.

Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus!
Let's all wear mood rings!

Insula Gilliganis
Gilligan's Island

================================================================================

		    USEFUL PHRASES IN ESPERANTO

^Cu vi parolas angle?                     Do you speak English?
Mi ne komprenas.                          I don't understand.
Vi estas la sola esperantisto kiun mi     You're the only Esperanto speaker
  renkontas.                                I've met.

La ^ceko estas enpo^stigita.              The check is in the mail.
Oni ne povas, ^gin netrovi.               You can't miss it.
Mi nur rigardadas.                        I'm just looking around.

^Cu tiu loko estas okupita?               Is this seat taken?
^Cu vi ofte venas ^ci-tien?               Do you come here often?
^Cu mi povas havi via telelonnumeron?     May I have your phone number?
Mi estas komputilisto.                    I work with computers.
Mi legas multe da scienca fikcio.         I read a lot of science fiction.
^Cu necesas ke vi eliras?                 Do you really have to be going?

Kie estas la plej proksima masa^gejo?     Where's the nearest massage parlor?
Vi dolorigas min.                         You're hurting me.
Mi deziras viziti usonan kuraciston.      I want to see an American doctor.
Mi deziras a^ceti kontraugraveda^jojn.    I would like to buy some 
                                                            contraceptives.
^Cu tiu estis ankau bona por ci ?         Was it good for you too?

Mia ^svebo^sipo estas plena je angiloj.   My hovercraft is full of eels.
Neniu anticipas la hispanan Inkvizicion.  No one expects the Spanish
                                                               Inquisition.
La solvo estas kvardekdu.                 The answer is forty-two.
^Cu estas krajono en via po^so, au ^cu    Is that a pencil in your pocket,
  vi feli^cas pri vidi min?                  or are you happy to see me?
Mi ^cevalovipus vin se mi havus ^cevalon. I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse.
Adiau, kaj dankoj por ^ciom da fi^so.     So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Kie estas la ne^goj hierauaj?             Ou sont les neiges d'antan?

Vere vi ^sercas.                          You must be kidding.
Nu, parDOOOnu min!                        Well exCUUUUUSE me!
Kiu invitis vin?                          Who invited you?
Kion vi diris pri mia patrino?            What did you say about my mother?
Bu^so^stopu min per kulero.               Gag me with a spoon.
Al mi donu ^sancon.                       Give me a break.

Nu, ^sajnis bona ideo.                    Well, it seemed like a good idea.
    

   .437  not-so-brilliant

    
    .439
    
    thanks. are you still unworthy? i think you should have moved up at
    least one notch.

    
    uh oh, herr binder has competition from mr. roberts.

    Insula Gilliganis! I'm dying!

>              <<< Note 860.441 by ACISS1::BATTIS "CNBC junkie" >>>

> should have moved up at
> least one notch.

	let's see... that would credit me with slightly more
	brain power than your average protozoan.  i'm not sure.

>The 'boxer who picks a fight with Eric has only themself to blame.

 Depends on the reasoning ...   :-)

    >>>  uh oh, herr binder has competition from mr. roberts
    
    Dick will probably check all those entries for errors and let us know
    when he finds them!  8^)

    .442
    
    Num Robertsum mihi rivalem esse putis, rusticum qui rem inventam in
    reticulo modo transcripsit?  Ridiculus es, mi amice.
    

    
    chris, at least herr binder can order martinis in latin. a very handy
    skill to possess.

    yes, ridiculous, my friend.

.444

There are a heck of a lot of protozoans around here.

Judging by the interest in flagellation.





[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    I must admit, I saw a couple of gramatical errors.  but it has been
    years (and I hate to say how many) since high school Latin.
    
    meg

>There are a heck of a lot of protozoans around here.

>Judging by the interest in flagellation.
    
    Surely you can't be cilia.

    would that be recreational flagellation?

Beats me.



[(C) Gerald Sacks, 199something.]
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

It was actually 198something.  Or maybe even 197something.

Those were very good years.




[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

  Apparently, the Clinton Admin including Def. Sec. Cohen have committed
 the foolish gaff of nominating an AF general to Chair the Chiefs, even
 though he admits to adultery !!

  What timing !

  bb

    Not only that, they committed a gaffe as well.

    Everyone knows that adultery isn't a big deal to the democratic party. 
    (The repubs do it, too, but at least they're ashamed of it.)

    Was it edp who explained (I think it was) that the problem isn't
    specifically adultery, it's actions that could damage the military. 
    Boinking a civilian has a very low probablility of causing some
    military mistake.  Boinking a subordinate, or boinking the spouse of
    another military person, has a much higher probability of causing such
    a mistake.

	Boink!  Boink!  That's all anyone ever talks about!

	<crazed look>

    Yer startin' to sound like Q-bert, there Debra.

According to one Sally Jacobs in yesterday's Globe, "most men think
constantly of sex."  I wonder what happened to sports and beer.

    >I wonder what happened to sports and beer.
    
    Off hours only!  :)

    It is hard to drink beer and watch sports on TV in the office. So why
    no BOINK!!!
    

  be all that you can be ?

  bb

    
    gerald, beer and sports rank up there with me. um, so does boinking.
    forget i said that.

	Isn't boinking a sport anyway?  Kind of like figure skating?

    I've yet to try a triple toe loop.

    I bet it would be a real ratings winner if added to the Olympics -
    somebody should contact Juan.  Although, we are then back to the old
    question - is it an art or a sport?

    the sport is trying to get the balls in, the art is the opposite.

It takes jaun to know jaun...

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thursday June 5 3:44 PM EDT 



    Gen. on List for Top US Officer Despite Affair



    WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The White House and Pentagon said Thursday that
    Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston remained a leading candidate to become
    chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff despite an adulterous affair 13
    years ago. 



    That decision not to reject Ralston's candidacy for the nation's top
    military job was announced after he revealed the affair this week amid
    a major debate in Washington over marital morals and sexual harassment
    in the armed forces. 



    Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs, issued a statement taking
    "full responsibility for my conduct some years ago" and thanking
    Defense Secretary William Cohen and others for their confidence in "my
    ability to further serve this nation." 



    Ralston, 53, gave no indication that he might withdraw his candidacy to
    succeed Army Gen. John Shalikashvili as chairman. 



    Cohen said in a strong statement he would make a recommendation to
    President Clinton in the coming two weeks and stressed that Ralston
    remained a top candidate. 



    Ralston this week revealed to Cohen in response to media inquiries that
    he had an affair while separated from his first wife 13 years ago. They
    were later divorced. 



    "I am satisfied that General Ralston's conduct was neither prejudicial
    to good order and discipline, nor discrediting to the armed forces,"
    Cohen said in the statement. 



    "General Ralston was a leading candidate before I learned of these
    events in his past and he is still a leading candidate. If I recommend
    General Ralston to the President, I will do so in full confidence of
    his character and leadership," said Cohen. 



    Beyond the issue of any violation of military law in the case, Cohen
    stressed, the ability to exercise moral leadership in the military
    "does not come from notions of perfection," but from maturity and
    courage to learn from errors, acknowledge mistakes and and make things
    right. 



    The news of the Ralston affair follows a series of embarrassing cases
    in which officers have been removed from command or retired over
    allegations of adultery or sexual harassment, which is strictly
    prohibited in the armed forces. 



    Air Force Lt. Kelly Flinn, the first female B-52 pilot, last month
    agreed to accept a general discharge rather than face a court-martial
    on charges of adultery, lying and failing to obey orders. 



    Ralston is "an outstanding soldier and an outstanding vice chairman who
    has outstanding qualifications for the job, but the recommendation has
    not yet gone to the president," White House spokeswoman Anne Luzzatto
    told reporters Thursday. 



    She said Cohen had discussed Ralston's past sexual relationship with a
    woman who was not his wife and that "he remains a candidate" for the
    joint chiefs' chairmanship. 



    Ralston, traveling in Kazakhstan and other former Soviet states, said
    in a brief statement issued at the Pentagon that he was thankful for
    support from Cohen, Shalikashvili, his family and others in recent
    days. 



    "I take full responsibility for my conduct some years ago and have
    worked diligently to learn from my mistakes. Our armed forces are
    composed of human beings that strive to meet the highest standards
    every day, but I am acutely aware of human strengths and human
    frailties." 



    Cohen told the Washington Post in an interview published Thursday that
    the Ralston affair lasted about one year and occurred while Ralston and
    his first wife, Linda, were separated. The Ralstons reconciled but then
    divorced in 1988. 



    "In my view," Cohen added in the statement Thursday, "these events
    standing alone do not disqualify General Ralston from possioble
    elevation to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." 



    While adultery is a crime in the military, the Pentagon rarely
    prosecutes soldiers and officers for adultery. But service members have
    often been forced into early retirement or had their pay and rank
    reduced. 



    Defense officials have said Ralston has been Cohen's favorite to
    succeed Shalikashvili but that Marine Corps Gen. John Sheehan, head of
    the U.S. military's Atlantic Command in Norfolk, Va., is also high on
    the list of candidates. 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slow reporting day. These guys really try to jack up a non-story ...

    Actually this guy should be welcomed with open arms by some Repubs.  he
    committed adultery, but is sorry for it, and he even helped drum
    another member of the armed forces out recently for having an
    adulterous affair with a civilian.  
    
    He does appear to show the steller values and morals of Rush, Reagan,
    Pat Buchanon, newt Gingrich.........  (and of course, Clinton)
    
    meg
    
    

    >and he even helped drum
    >another member of the armed forces out recently for having an
    >adulterous affair with a civilian.  

    Myopia alert!

	But...why is it ok for him, but not for others?

>	But...why is it ok for him, but not for others?

      Apples to oranges alert!

	Do tell how adultery is apples in one case and oranges in another?

	Really, I'd like to know.  I'm not being facetious.

    I am not talking about the B2 pilot.  This is another person in his own
    group and last year, according to AP.  If adultery is a bad thing for
    one person, than it should be for others, rather than this witch hunt
    of finding people who boff and trashing soe, but promoting others.  
    
    

  This nomination should not be approved.  It is a blunder, and the
 timing of it sets a record for political ineptitude.  I fault both
 Clinton and Cohen.  Hasn't this White House learned ANYTHING in five years ?

  bb

>	Do tell how adultery is apples in one case and oranges in another?

  It's not. No one has said it was. 

  And compared to the recent B52 bomber case, his transgression is apples
  to oranges ...

  Did he fraternize?
  Did he compromise any other military member?
  Did he hurt the military in any way by his actions?

  (If he did, the papers would certainly be plastering it all over
   the headlines)

  Doug.  

   

	Thank you.

> This is another person in his own
>    group and last year, according to AP. 

  Details please.

    
    seems to me that there are a lot of horny undersexed people in the
    military.

I would not have thought undersex'd ....

    re: .482
    
    If those in the military are supposed to embrace a higher moral
    code of conduct in order to serve their country, then indeed his
    actions should be considered conduct unbecoming an officer in the 
    military and he should not be allowed to serve.
    
    If, on the other hand, all the military is really worried about
    is "compromising positions" that compromise national security,
    then I suppose they really ought to be honest and simply state it
    that way.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

The MCOJ identifies behaviours which can negatively affect the military.
It is limitted to the military environment.

They don't particularly care who you sleep with as long as it doesn't
compromise anyone in the military.

It remains unproven that this Joe has damaged the military in any way.

Does that mean what he did was 'OK'? Certainly not. Should it be career
limiting? Certainly not.

Is it embarrassing?  You bet. The timming could hardly be worse.

Doug.