AT&T offer's VOIP
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch

Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.

Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981. Do
you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's a
fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..




This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch



This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.


Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch



Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.



Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981.
Do you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's
a fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced to
take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications were both
immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any responsible
president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation like that.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:29:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced
to take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications
were both immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any
responsible president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation
like that.

Eisboch

I think you were right the first time. I think Carter had a contingency
in place to survive the strike. I don't think he would have fired the
controllers.

It has been argued that the firings were an ambush, a chance for Reagan
to look tough. Note the letter to Robert Poli, head of PATCO, written in
Oct, 1980. I wonder what changed.


Dear Mr. Poli:
I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable
state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that
too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has
placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so
clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to
act responsibly.
You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take
whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with
the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work
days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of
public safety....
I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with
you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the
air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:59:18 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch




This nation runs on greed, not law.

Leave it.
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch



This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run
on laws.


Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Say Goodnight Gracie

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.

Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

SWS,
Damn you! Stop trying to bring logic into this discussion.

Don't you know this is UseNet and the correct manner of carrying on a
discussion is to use childish insults, emotional rants, and repeating
yourself over and over.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.

Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

Donkey ears is conditioned by his handlers to speak the party line. You are
asking too much of him Tom.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:13:20 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".
This nation runs on greed, not law.
While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is run on
laws.
Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.
Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

That's not an answer - as a voter and as a citizen, you are obligated
to hold yourself to the same standard.

Now answer the question - what is the difference between your view
that breaking laws is morally acceptable as a functioning citizen of
the United States as opposed to the President, it would not be
acceptable.


A. There's no oath operative in this state require a voter to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution, and therefore there is no
obligation to do same.

B. The POTUS swears an oath to obey the law, and not just the law he likes.


When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I
anticipated I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for
trying to end segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he
doesn't like, he knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court
will for the most part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Jim wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:53 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

This nation runs on greed, not law.

While greed is the basis of the free market system, the nation is
run on
laws.

Really? Better call the White House and tell President Incompetent. As
"the decider," he believes otherwise.

Try to answer this question as honestly as you can.

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

Donkey ears is conditioned by his handlers to speak the party line. You
are asking too much of him Tom.


Ahh, Jim the Idiot is still with us.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:05 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

The President's oath of office?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:05 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

What is the difference between your philosophy of morally compelled to
break laws you disagree with and, in theory, the President being
morally compelled to do the same?

The President's oath of office?



Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't let that get out...someone might remind President Idiot
of it.

The POTUS is legally and morally bound to obey the laws of this country.
He swears an oath to do so.

Dubya, obviously, doesn't believe these laws apply to his Administration.

Politicians.... if they're not corrupt when they go into office, many sure
slide the slippery slope under party influence.
A past prime minister of ours (celebrated Ronnie Reagan bum boy), is back in
the news again. I wish these guys could be nailed for what they do.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/moneytruthandspin/

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.


In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch


This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..




This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch


Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.



No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity for
its members.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.


No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity for
its members.

They definitely failed on that one. In fact, Patco handled it so poorly
that Patco had a negative effect on all labor unions. Talk about
screwing up big time.

If Patco wanted to get the public behind them, they should have
emphasized the need to update the infrastructure, increase public and
employee safety and also lastly provide a competitive workplace.

If Patco is not a case study for all unions, it should be. By any
chance, were you advising Patco how to handle their negotiations?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Dec 10, 2:12 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"HK" wrote in message
...

This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch

Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.

45 degrees is too cold, also. When I was out there during
thanksgiving, it was down in the 30's a few of the nights.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.


No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity
for its members.

They definitely failed on that one. In fact, Patco handled it so poorly
that Patco had a negative effect on all labor unions. Talk about
screwing up big time.

If Patco wanted to get the public behind them, they should have
emphasized the need to update the infrastructure, increase public and
employee safety and also lastly provide a competitive workplace.

If Patco is not a case study for all unions, it should be. By any
chance, were you advising Patco how to handle their negotiations?




No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Of course, you've deliberately kept from this newsgroup what it is
you've been doing for a living all these years. From the quality of your
posts, I'm guess you paint the eyeballs on Mickey Mouse dolls for some
Chinese labor contractor. You don't seem to have the skills for much else.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.

No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity for
its members.

PATCO members already made more than the average salary.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 2:12 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"HK" wrote in message
...

This nation runs on greed, not law.

I see. I also see that it's worthless to continue this discussion.
I have to go outside and de-ice the driveway anyway.

Eisboch

Ice on the driveway? How can you live like that? ;) Cold here last
night. Was 45 when driving home from mom's at 10 pm.

45 degrees is too cold, also. When I was out there during
thanksgiving, it was down in the 30's a few of the nights.

Beats the crap out of snow and ice in the driveway. About 65 today.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK to
break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled to
change them".

Eisboch
This nation runs on greed, not law.
Sounds like Patco.
No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity for
its members.

PATCO members already made more than the average salary.




You think "the average" salary is equity?

You don't know what equity is, either.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is
OK to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally
compelled to change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.


No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity
for its members.

They definitely failed on that one. In fact, Patco handled it so
poorly that Patco had a negative effect on all labor unions. Talk
about screwing up big time.

If Patco wanted to get the public behind them, they should have
emphasized the need to update the infrastructure, increase public and
employee safety and also lastly provide a competitive workplace.

If Patco is not a case study for all unions, it should be. By any
chance, were you advising Patco how to handle their negotiations?




No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor contract
ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I
were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor contract
ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to


You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small
at the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session
committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on
behalf of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in
the United States and as a result of success in that area, my
principal and I were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the
incoming Reagan Administration and then offered the same jobs again
in 1984. Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your principal
independently said no, both times. That and the "largest labor
contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to


You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many years,
and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee twice,
during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major postal unions
bargained together in committee fashion. The committees were very small
at the main sessions, where I participated, but the craft session
committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

Harry,
Someone who had done some reading on mythomania, would tell you that
those who are prone to mythomania are inclined to embellishes his or her
stories with very elaborate detail, in a way that he or she believes
will impress people.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on
behalf of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in
the United States and as a result of success in that area, my
principal and I were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the
incoming Reagan Administration and then offered the same jobs again
in 1984. Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your
principal independently said no, both times. That and the "largest
labor contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast experience
have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to


You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many
years, and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee
twice, during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major
postal unions bargained together in committee fashion. The committees
were very small at the main sessions, where I participated, but the
craft session committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

Harry,
Someone who had done some reading on mythomania, would tell you that
those who are prone to mythomania are inclined to embellishes his or her
stories with very elaborate detail, in a way that he or she believes
will impress people.


Sorry, dickbreath, there's no one in here I wish to impress. I remember
details that to me are important enough to remember. I remember the
first political campaign on which I worked when I was 16 years old, I
remember the candidate, I remember the downtown office in which we made
phone calls, and I remember going to a victory picnic. I also remember
the name of every grade school, junior high, and high school teacher I
had, and that it was Mrs. Dickstein in the third grade who taught us
simple French, and it was Mrs. Olson in the fifth grade who got me
hooked on Latin. On the other hand, it was Ms. McGough in the 8th grade
who told me I could become a writer.



There's no one in here I even know, and probably no more than a half
dozen I'd enjoy meeting. You aren't on the list.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie? How long were you
employed as a fluffer?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on
behalf of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in
the United States and as a result of success in that area, my
principal and I were offered top jobs at a big federal agency by
the incoming Reagan Administration and then offered the same jobs
again in 1984. Independently, we both said no both times.

Wow, that is very impressive. You should be very proud of your
accomplishments. I am most impressed that both you and your
principal independently said no, both times. That and the "largest
labor contract ever agreed to" are both very nice touchs.

With all of your college education, world travels and vast
experience have you ever heard of or reading anything about mythomania?


I try not to


You don't have to try, since it is obvious you've never done a damned
thing in your work life.

I was a consultant to two of the national postal unions for many
years, and a member of the unions' postal labor negotiating committee
twice, during two different contract negotiations, in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. In those days for a few contracts, the three major
postal unions bargained together in committee fashion. The committees
were very small at the main sessions, where I participated, but the
craft session committees were much larger.

What have you ever done professionally, Reggie?
Oh, we know...it would be *too* revealing.

Harry,
Someone who had done some reading on mythomania, would tell you that
those who are prone to mythomania are inclined to embellishes his or
her stories with very elaborate detail, in a way that he or she
believes will impress people.


Sorry, dickbreath, there's no one in here I wish to impress.

Why would you go to all of the trouble to type of that paragraph if you
didn't want to impress people? Why would you bother to tell everyone
about your Hatteras, Lobster Boat, Yale Education, Dr. Dr. wife if you
didn't want to impress someone?

An important thing to note about those with mythomania is they often
suffer from confabulation. It really is an interesting subject, you
really should look into it.

Now while I have a very successful career, and have many professional
and personal achievements I am proud about, I don't think it is
necessary to discuss them in a recreational forum.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Now while I have a very successful career, and have many professional
and personal achievements I am proud about, I don't think it is
necessary to discuss them in a recreational forum.


Since 99% of the posters here are anti-labor, it is unlikely they're
going to be impressed with my labor union history.

I'm sure you have a very successful career, Reggie. As a fluffer.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
...



When I engaged in civil disobedience and broke certain laws, I anticipated
I would be arrested and subject to certain penalties for trying to end
segregation and suchlike. When Bush breaks the laws he doesn't like, he
knows that his Justice Department and his Supreme Court will for the most
part rubberstamp what he does, and give him a hall pass.

How's that for morality?


This whole discussion just became a waste of time.

Let's drop it.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
...

Jim wrote:


Donkey ears is conditioned by his handlers to speak the party line. You
are asking too much of him Tom.




Ahh, Jim the Idiot is still with us.

Harry, I've know Jim for many years and I am pleased to have him as a
friend. I can assure you he's far, far from being an Idiot.

In fact, he's right. You are making a jackass out of yourself.

Drop it.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:


The POTUS is legally and morally bound to obey the laws of this country.

So are you and I and the ATC.

Stop your stupid spin machine. It's not working.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:32:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

So, yes, if certain laws don't fit in with my philosophy, it is OK
to break them. In fact, one is morally compelled to break them.

In a nation founded on laws, I wish you had said "morally compelled
to change them".

Eisboch

This nation runs on greed, not law.

Sounds like Patco.


No, what it sounds like is this: you don't know what you are talking
about. One of the main purposes of a labor union is to obtain equity
for its members.

They definitely failed on that one. In fact, Patco handled it so poorly
that Patco had a negative effect on all labor unions. Talk about
screwing up big time.

If Patco wanted to get the public behind them, they should have
emphasized the need to update the infrastructure, increase public and
employee safety and also lastly provide a competitive workplace.

If Patco is not a case study for all unions, it should be. By any
chance, were you advising Patco how to handle their negotiations?




No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf
of three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United
States and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were
offered top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan
Administration and then offered the same jobs again in 1984.
Independently, we both said no both times.

Of course, you've deliberately kept from this newsgroup what it is
you've been doing for a living all these years. From the quality of your
posts, I'm guess you paint the eyeballs on Mickey Mouse dolls for some
Chinese labor contractor. You don't seem to have the skills for much else.

Harry, since we've read about this incident now, can we say we were
involved also?
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:45:41 -0500, HK wrote:

You think "the average" salary is equity?

You don't know what equity is, either.

Those are interesting questions. PATCO was trying to achieve equity
with what exactly?

They certainly got poor advice from someone regarding public relations
and political influence.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:45:41 -0500, HK wrote:

You think "the average" salary is equity?

You don't know what equity is, either.

Those are interesting questions. PATCO was trying to achieve equity
with what exactly?

They certainly got poor advice from someone regarding public relations
and political influence.



Look up the meaning of equity. No, nevermind, you use a crap dictionary.

He

("EkwItI) Forms: 4–6 equite, -yte, (4 equitee, -ytee, -ytie, 5 eqwyte),
4–7 equitie, (6 æquitie, -ity), 6 equity. [a. OF. equité = Pr. equitat,
Sp. equidad, It. equità, ad. L. æquitQt-em, f. æquus even, fair.]
I. In general.

1. The quality of being equal or fair; fairness, impartiality;
evenhanded dealing.
The L. æquitas was somewhat influenced in meaning by being adopted
as the ordinary rendering of Gr. Žpie¬jeia (see epiky), which meant
reasonableness and moderation in the exercise of one's rights, and the
disposition to avoid insisting on them too rigorously. An approach to
this sense is found in many of the earlier Eng. examples.
c1315 Shoreham 154 Thet hys hys pryvete Of hys domes in equyte.
1382 Wyclif Mal. ii. 6 In equitee he walkide with me. c1425 Wyntoun
Cron. vii. x. 491 Be justys he gave and eqwyte Til ilke man, þat his
suld be. 1477 Earl Rivers (Caxton) Dictes 6a, He [God] shal juge you in
equite. 1535 Coverdale Job xxix. 14 Equity was my crowne. 1588 J.
Udall Diotrephes (Arb.) 19 Weigh it in the ballance of equitie. 1611
Bible Transl. Pref. 10 They can with no show of equity challenge vs for
changing and correcting. 1660 Jer. Taylor Duct. Dubit. iii. vi. §i. 399
Not to punish any man more than the law compels us; that's equity. 1673
Rules of Civility (ed. 2) 141 The person of honour is in equity to go in
first. 1759 Robertson Hist. Scot. II. viii. 32 These princes readily
acknowledged the equity of his claim. a1832 Mackintosh Revol. Wks. 1846
II. 158 Those principles of equity and policy on which religious liberty
is founded. 1870 Lowell Among my Bks. Ser. i. (1873) 257 There is a
singular equity and absence of party passion.

2. concr. What is fair and right; something that is fair and right.
rarely in pl.
c1374 Chaucer Boeth. iv. vi. 144 Amonges þise þinges sitteþ þe heye
makere+to don equite. 1377 Langl. P. Pl. B. xix. 305 He dede equite to
alle euene forth his powere. 1483 Caxton Cato Aviij, That he may do
equyte and justyce. 1875 Manning Mission H. Ghost x. 267 The equities
which we owe to our neighbour.

II. In Jurisprudence.

3. The recourse to general principles of justice (the naturalis
æquitas of Roman jurists) to correct or supplement the provisions of the
law. equity of a statute: the construction of a statute according to its
reason and spirit, so as to make it apply to cases for which it does not
expressly provide.
1574 tr. Littleton's Tenures 6a, They bee taken by the equitie of
the statute. 1642 Perkins Prof. Bk. iv. §270. 120 Such Assetts are not
taken by the equitie of the Statute of Gloucester. 1858 Ld. St.
Leonards Handy Bk. Prop. Law ii. 3 Chancellors+moderated the rigour of
the law according+to equity.



4. a. In England (hence in Ireland and the United States), the
distinctive name of a system of law existing side by side with the
common and statute law (together called ‘law’ in a narrower sense), and
superseding these, when they conflict with it.
The original notion was that of sense 3, a decision ‘in equity’
being understood to be one given in accordance with natural justice, in
a case for which the law did not provide adequate remedy, or in which
its operation would have been unfair. These decisions, however, were
taken as precedents, and thus ‘equity’ early became an organized system
of rules, not less definite and rigid than those of ‘law’; though the
older notion long continued to survive in the language of legal writers,
and to some extent to influence the practice of equity judges. In
England, equity was formerly administered by a special class of
tribunals, of which the Court of Chancery was chief; but since 1873 all
the branches of the High Court administer both ‘law’ and ‘equity’, it
being provided that where the two differ, the rules of equity are to be
followed. Nevertheless, the class of cases formerly dealt with by the
Court of Chancery are still reserved to the Chancery Division of the
High Court.
1591 Lambarde Arch (1635) 46 And likewise in his Court of Equitie he
doth+cancell and shut up the rigour of the generall Law. Ibid. 58 The
Iustices should informe him [the King] of the Law, and the Chancellor of
Equitie. 1745 De Foe's Eng. Tradesman II. xxxix. 116 He will always
have the worst of it in equity, whatever he may have at common law.
1765–9 Blackstone Comm. (J.), In the court of Chancery, there are two
distinct tribunals; the one ordinary, being a court of common law; the
other extra~ordinary, being a court of equity. 1832 Austin Jurispr.
(1879) I. 40 Equity sometimes signifies a species of law. 1853 Wharton
Pa. Digest 708 Equity will grant relief when+a contract is made under a
mistake. 1858 Ld. St. Leonards Handy Bk. Prop. Law ii. 3 There are
settled and inviolable rules of equity, which require to be moderated by
the rules of good conscience.


b. Defined so as to include other systems analogous to this; e.g.
the prætorium jus of the Romans.
1861 Maine Anc. Law ii. (1870) 28 What I call equity+any body of
rules existing by the side of the original civil law, founded on
distinct principles and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law
in virtue of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles.

5. a. An equitable right, i.e. one recognizable by a court of
equity. Often in pl.
a1626 Bacon Max. & Uses Com. Law 65 Upon which agreement in Writing,
there ariseth an Equitie or Honestie, that the land should goe according
to those agreements. 1826–30 Kent Comm. II. 118 The wife's equity to a
suitable provision for the maintenance of herself and her children.
1844 Williams Real Prop. (ed. 12) 177 Incidental equities are also to be
recognized by the courts respectively and every judge thereof. 1883 Sir
E. E. Kay in Law Times Rep. XLIX. 77/2 It was hardly said that he was
entitled to any charge, or lien, or equity on this particular fund.


b. equity of redemption: the right which a mortgagor who has in law
forfeited his estate has of redeeming it within a reasonable time by
payment of the principal and interest. equity to a settlement: a wife's
equitable right to have settled upon her any properties coming to her
after marriage.
1712 Arbuthnot John Bull 67 But has not Esquire South the equity of
redemption? 1767 Blackstone Comm. II. 159 This reasonable advantage,
allowed to mortgagors, is called the equity of redemption. 1858 Ld. St.
Leonards Handy Bk. Prop. Law xiv. 92 Twenty years' adverse possession,
by a person claiming the equity of redemption, will bar the rightful
owner.

c. (See quot. 1966.) orig. U.S.
1904 E. S. Meade in Pol. Sci. Q. Mar. 50 Its preferred stock is
quoted at+prices which indicate a general conviction that the equity in
the company is worth little. 1928 New Statesman 28 July, Finance Suppl.
p. vi, Out of the combined issued capital of £16,629,000 the public put
up 93 per cent. of the cash required, but received only 21.8 per cent.
of the equity—that is the balance of profits remaining after the fixed
dividends have been paid on the Preferred capital. 1930 Times
(Financial Rev.) 11 Feb. p. iii/2 It was widely imagined that more money
was to be made in high pressure equities than in anæmic mortgages. 1966
A. Gilpin Dict. Econ. Terms (1967) 72 Equities, the ordinary shares of a
limited company. They carry the right to the residue of a company's
assets after it has paid all its creditors, and share in the
distribution of profits, if any, after interest has been paid to
preference share-holders and debenture holders each year. 1969 Times
(Suppl.) 5 May p. iii/1 The shift in portfolio preferences of
institutional investors from bonds to equities+is even more rapid+than
the statistics suggest. 1970 Money Which? Sept. 143/2 The ordinary
shares of companies (also called equities) are bought and sold on a
Stock Exchange. 1930 Daily Express 8 Sept. 10/2 Purchasers of equity
securities of the speculative type. 1931 Ibid. 16 Oct. 14/5 To pay 5
per cent. on the equity shares and meet the preferential and debenture
interests, a trading profit of £111,000 is necessary. 1953 Economist 4
Apr. 18/2 Canadian tax practice+has made loan finance more attractive to
corporations than equity finance. 1965 McGraw-Hill Dict. Mod. Econ. 181
Equity capital, the total investment in a business by all its owners.



6. attrib. and Comb., as equity-bar, court, -judge, -lawyer. Also
equity-draughtsman, a barrister who draws pleadings in equity.
a1832 Bentham Justice & Codific. Petit. Wks. 1843 V. 484 Turn first
to the self-styled equity courts.



It's not equity *with*; it's equity.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..


No, crap-for-brains. I was, however, involved in negotiating on behalf of
three unions the largest labor contact ever agreed to in the United States
and as a result of success in that area, my principal and I were offered
top jobs at a big federal agency by the incoming Reagan Administration and
then offered the same jobs again in 1984. Independently, we both said no
both times.

Of course, you've deliberately kept from this newsgroup what it is you've
been doing for a living all these years. From the quality of your posts,
I'm guess you paint the eyeballs on Mickey Mouse dolls for some Chinese
labor contractor. You don't seem to have the skills for much else.


You know what?
I give up.

Eisboch