"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Briefly, as previously stated, I was an employee of a Defense
Department
agency. At first, my job was to gather information, but I was not
a
spy,
nor was I working as one. Just information gathering.

But I did get...the offer of two high level
jobs in labor management for the USPS.

Admit it. You tracked lost mail for the Army.


That would have been fun, but, alas, I turned down the USPS...twice.


That's probably a good thing. The USPS already has enough employees
with
anti-social personality disorders.



Most of it is a result of really ****-poor management and management
policies. Really. Unless you've seen it up close, you cannot begin to
understand how bad postal management at the post office level is.


That's my main beef with organizations which promote people based upon
length of time working there rather than based upon a person's merits.
It
then becomes virtually impossible to get rid of the dead wood. Instead,
the
dead wood gets promoted. The Public school system is another example
where
tenure has really ****ed things up. If I have one major complaint about
labor unions, it's that they're the *worst* perpetrator of this type of
irrational promotion scheme.




You obviously have no idea how the USPS works.

No? Then please enlighten me. On what basis does the USPS promote
employees?

Oh...and teachers don't get promoted year to year with the kids.

No. The really ****ty ones (who get the most parental complaints about
them)get shuffled off to an administration position...which is tantamount to
a promotion. Conversely, the great ones are, in-effect, punished by being
shifted into the classrooms to teach the kids who weren't able to pass the
minimum basic skills tests.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.


I had never heard of John Dean until I read that very same article at
FindLaw just yesterday (before you posted it).

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

Oh...and teachers don't get promoted year to year with the kids.

No. The really ****ty ones (who get the most parental complaints about
them)get shuffled off to an administration position...which is tantamount
to
a promotion. Conversely, the great ones are, in-effect, punished by being
shifted into the classrooms to teach the kids who weren't able to pass the
minimum basic skills tests.



Quite a generalization. It doesn't work that way in MY son's school. Perhaps
you should try walking into your school sometime and actually speaking to
the principal.

NOYB wrote:
Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



The relevance of John Dean's opinion about the secrecy of the Bush White
House, relative to the Nixon White House, is that he was one of the
principal figures in the Watergate break-in and cover-up; along with all
the other malfeasances, high crimes, and treasons, that Nixon ordered.

But, it doesn't make sense to ask the man who knows the real facts, does
it? That might interfere with your preconceptions & prejudices.

FACT- President Bush and Vice President Cheney are dedicated to secrecy.
They have enforced secrecy ordered not backed by law, kept secrets
from Congress, from the military, from their own cabinet, and certainly
from the citizens of the U.S. Their is by far the most secretive of any
administration in American history.

Why? It is not a reaction to the Sept 11th attacks justified by the "war
on terror." The secrecy orders began practically the day after their
inauguration.

Why do they need to keep so much of what they do secret? What are they
afraid of?

DSK

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.


I had never heard of John Dean until I read that very same article at
FindLaw just yesterday (before you posted it).




Simply amazing, but not surprising. Read more. And read more often.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do
you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of
an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.


I had never heard of John Dean until I read that very same article at
FindLaw just yesterday (before you posted it).




Simply amazing, but not surprising. Read more. And read more often.

What's "watergate"?

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:

You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument that the
only reason the case has teeth is because a liberal judge ruled that it
might? That's downright laughable. In case you haven't figured it out, I
don't have much respect for the opinions of attorneys and activist judges.

All right, NOYB FINALLY is admitting to his narrow mindedness!!!

"basskisser" wrote in message
m...
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for
U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is
a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same
guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee
zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:

You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument that the
only reason the case has teeth is because a liberal judge ruled that it
might? That's downright laughable. In case you haven't figured it out,
I
don't have much respect for the opinions of attorneys and activist
judges.

All right, NOYB FINALLY is admitting to his narrow mindedness!!!

Narrow-mindedness? Because I don't know the names of all of the people
involved in the Watergate break-in and coverup? I was 2 years old when Dean
was testifying before the Senate Watergate Committee.

NOYB wrote:
Narrow-mindedness? Because I don't know the names of all of the people
involved in the Watergate break-in and coverup?

I wouldn't call that narrowmindedness. I'd call it uneducated, or lack
of knowledge. Right up to the point where you start offering opinions
(or stating opinions strongly, including calling those who disagree
names) on the subject without any knowledge even when it's been held out
to you.

Then it becomes stupid.

... I was 2 years old when Dean
was testifying before the Senate Watergate Committee.

Still think his opinion on the secretiveness of the Bush White House is
irrelevant? Still think John Dean is a "liberal activist lawyer"?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

I was 2 years old....

Was?