New Policy Allows Soldiers To Be Court-Martialed For Pregnancies
Jack Linthicum
New Policy Allows Soldiers To Be Court-Martialed For Pregnancies
Jillian Rayfield | December 18, 2009, 4:25PM
A new military policy makes it possible for army men and women serving
in Iraq to face a court-martial for becoming pregnant or impregnating
another solider.
According to Teri Weaver of Stars and Stripes, the policy went into
effect on November 4, and calls for military personnel serving in Iraq
to face jail time or a court martial for "becoming pregnant, or
impregnating a soldier, while assigned to the Task Force Marne (Area
of Operations), resulting in the redeployment of the pregnant
soldier."
Apparently, the policy also applies to married couples, who could both
face punishment if the woman becomes pregnant while they are at war
together.
Army spokesman Major Lee Peters told Stars and Stripes that the policy
is designed to prevent pregnancies that may effect a unit's
performance: "When a soldier becomes pregnant or causes a soldier to
become pregnant through consensual activity, the redeployment of the
pregnant soldier creates a void in the unit and has a negative impact
on the unit's ability to accomplish its mission. Another soldier must
assume the pregnant soldier's responsibilities."
So far, no one has been punished as a result of this new policy.
Arved Sandstrom
> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>
> New Policy Allows Soldiers To Be Court-Martialed For Pregnancies
> Jillian Rayfield | December 18, 2009, 4:25PM
>
> A new military policy makes it possible for army men and women serving
> in Iraq to face a court-martial for becoming pregnant or impregnating
> another solider.
Why did they need a new policy? Isn't a pregnancy in a war zone the same
as any other form of malingering? Article 115 should cover it.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because up until now a pregnancy was considered a 'legitimate' medical
> condition and would get the woman rotated back Stateside. Obviously,
> someone got tired of having women be a significant part of the Force
> and yet they couldn't be relied on because they'd get knocked up so
> they could go home.
>
> It's not 'malingering', since pregnancy is a REAL health condition.
Only one portion of Article 115 deals with feigning illness or injury;
the other part deals with REAL self-inflicted health conditions. For
example, preventable sunburns and alcohol poisoning are both very REAL,
and one section of Article 115 covers those cases.
I'll accept that the PC types pussyfooted on calling this form of
malingering for what it really was until now. But malingering it is and
malingering it always has been, and it seems to me that *now* they could
use Article 115.
AHS
Dennis
> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>
> New Policy Allows Soldiers To Be Court-Martialed For Pregnancies
> Jillian Rayfield | December 18, 2009, 4:25PM
>
> A new military policy makes it possible for army men and women serving
> in Iraq to face a court-martial for becoming pregnant or impregnating
> another solider.
Since when has that kept semen under control? :-)
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
Eugene L Griessel
Sometimes I wake up grumpy; other times, I let her sleep.
- I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
dott.Piergiorgio
> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>
>
>
> New Policy Allows Soldiers To Be Court-Martialed For Pregnancies
> Jillian Rayfield | December 18, 2009, 4:25PM
>
> A new military policy makes it possible for army men and women serving
> in Iraq to face a court-martial for becoming pregnant or impregnating
> another solider.
>
> According to Teri Weaver of Stars and Stripes, the policy went into
> effect on November 4, and calls for military personnel serving in Iraq
> to face jail time or a court martial for "becoming pregnant, or
> impregnating a soldier, while assigned to the Task Force Marne (Area
> of Operations), resulting in the redeployment of the pregnant
> soldier."
>
> Apparently, the policy also applies to married couples, who could both
> face punishment if the woman becomes pregnant while they are at war
> together.
OK let's see what politician's hyopcrisy starts from here....
For a starting point, there's a natural instinct to mate when in a
life-or-death situation.....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>
> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
Eugene Griessel
<dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>>
>> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
>> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
>
>because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
>
Unless they can produce a verse that says "thou shalt not have
contraceptive implants" let the silly buggers scream. All kiddies who
don't get their own way have tantrums. Best cure is to ignore it.
Eugene L Griessel
Prostitutes perform the same functions as priests, but far more thoroughly.
Alan Lothian
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
> :Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
> :> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> :> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>
> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
> :>
> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
> :
> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
> :
>
> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right. I would
> expect the folks who would do the screaming would be the Left, since
> forcing a contraceptive implant on someone certainly ought to be
> considered an infringement on individual rights and freedoms.
>
> People, even military people, are *NOT* property.
Note how the Sovs, during Big Mistake II, dealt with pregnancy among
Partisans. The strict rule was not always enforced, of course, but it
was pretty damned nasty. Clue: it did *not* involve being flown back to
Moscow. Not something to emulate, I freely grant you.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>In article <u5cpi55iq3frrn915...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>>
>> :Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
>> :> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>> :> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> :>
>> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>> :>
>> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
>> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
>> :
>> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
>> :
>>
>> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right. I would
>> expect the folks who would do the screaming would be the Left, since
>> forcing a contraceptive implant on someone certainly ought to be
>> considered an infringement on individual rights and freedoms.
>>
>> People, even military people, are *NOT* property.
If people are not property then by what right can rules be made about
their natural bodily functions? Such as getting pregnant?
I would scream far more loudly about that.
Eugene L Griessel
Prostitutes perform the same functions as priests, but far more thoroughly.
- I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's not 'malingering', since pregnancy is a REAL health condition.
When I typed re-ups, I had a copy of the manual for courts-martial.
Been a long time, but I recall that self inflicted injuries were
malingering. We are not so barbaric as the WWI Brits who would give a
man a firing squad for shooting himself in the foot.
Casady
Richard Casady
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>If people are not property then by what right can rules be made about
>their natural bodily functions?
Some places you can drop your trousers and defecate right in the
middle of the street. Other places that is illegal.
Casady
Jim Yanik
news:ofepi5l7p22mlaaga...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:40:38 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not 'malingering', since pregnancy is a REAL health condition.
unless they're using birth control,pregnancy is a voluntary choice
(the choice of having unprotected sex) resulting in the loss of readiness.
A PG soldier cannot perform their job.
Now,if their BC failed,then they should be given some consideration.
However,the clause about punishing a male soldier who impregnates a female
soldier is wrong,just more PC CRAP.
It's strictly the woman's fault she got pregnant;HER choice to have
unprotected sex,that disabled HER.
It is strictly HER responsibility for her body.
>
> When I typed re-ups, I had a copy of the manual for courts-martial.
> Been a long time, but I recall that self inflicted injuries were
> malingering. We are not so barbaric as the WWI Brits who would give a
> man a firing squad for shooting himself in the foot.
>
> Casady
>
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jack Linthicum
> Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote innews:ofepi5l7p22mlaaga...@4ax.com:
Then issue each female soldier a razor knife which she would keep
strapped to her thigh, convenient to the best place for its use.
Eugene Griessel
Non sequitur - the analogy would be a rule forbidding defaecating.
Peter Skelton
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:11:40 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com>
>:wrote:
>:
>:>In article <u5cpi55iq3frrn915...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>:>>
>:>> :Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
>:>> :> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>:>> :> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>> :>
>:>> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
>:>> :>
>:>> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
>:>> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
>:>> :
>:>> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
>:>> :
>:>>
>:>> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right. I would
>:>> expect the folks who would do the screaming would be the Left, since
>:>> forcing a contraceptive implant on someone certainly ought to be
>:>> considered an infringement on individual rights and freedoms.
>:>>
>:>> People, even military people, are *NOT* property.
>:
>:If people are not property then by what right can rules be made about
>:their natural bodily functions? Such as getting pregnant?
>:I would scream far more loudly about that.
>:
>
>The same way you can punish people who do other things to get out of a
>combat zone, like shooting themselves in the foot.
>
>You can tell them what they must not do. You can't tell them (or
>force them) to do it the way you want when that way requires violating
>their bodily integrity.
>
>FORCE a birth control implant on everyone and you've just created a
>bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen when they get back out of the
>combat zone and ANYTHING doesn't go the way they want it to.
How did the mess aoubt the GWI innoculations (which were ordered
IIRC) work out? There's a long history of compulsory medication
in the military.
Peter Skelton
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
Yep - they force you to forego your God-given right to experience
yellow fever, cholera, tetanus and a slew of other interesting and
sometimes fatal conditions so why a fuss about preventing pregnancy?
It is, after all, a medical condition caused by - er -infection?
My old man used to complain bitterly that in the early days they would
stick one needle into your arm and then three or four medics would
each take a turn at fitting a syringe to the needle and squirting
something in. (He was a major coward with respect to
injections/needles - and although he never failed to donate blood
would invariable pass out whilst doing so.)
Eugene L Griessel
The man who does not read books has no advantage over the man that
cannot read them.
Felix Reuthner
> However,the clause about punishing a male soldier who impregnates a female
> soldier is wrong,just more PC CRAP.
> It's strictly the woman's fault she got pregnant;HER choice to have
> unprotected sex,that disabled HER.
> It is strictly HER responsibility for her body.
To stay near to the comparison to self inflicted injuries, a male
soldier who gets a female soldier pregnant is not that much different
from a soldier who wounds a buddy by a negligent discharge, is it?
Jim Yanik
You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
It was HER choice to have unprotected sex,knowing fully that it could
prevent her from performing her military obligations.
It would be like she deliberately stepped in front of the guys
weapon [grin] knowing he was going to fire it [grin],to keep with the
negligent discharge analogy.
the guy is certainly not responsible for -her- bad decisions.
tankfixer
jya...@abuse.gov says...
>
> Richard Casady <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:ofepi5l7p22mlaaga...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:40:38 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> ><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It's not 'malingering', since pregnancy is a REAL health condition.
>
> unless they're using birth control,pregnancy is a voluntary choice
> (the choice of having unprotected sex) resulting in the loss of readiness.
> A PG soldier cannot perform their job.
>
> Now,if their BC failed,then they should be given some consideration.
>
> However,the clause about punishing a male soldier who impregnates a female
> soldier is wrong,just more PC CRAP.
> It's strictly the woman's fault she got pregnant;HER choice to have
> unprotected sex,that disabled HER.
> It is strictly HER responsibility for her body.
Bull..
Both soldiers are equally responsible.
tankfixer
jya...@abuse.gov says...
>
> Felix Reuthner <sp...@reuthner.net> wrote in news:hgjmhr$gh$1...@online.de:
>
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
> >> However,the clause about punishing a male soldier who impregnates a
> >> female soldier is wrong,just more PC CRAP.
> >> It's strictly the woman's fault she got pregnant;HER choice to have
> >> unprotected sex,that disabled HER.
> >> It is strictly HER responsibility for her body.
> >
> > To stay near to the comparison to self inflicted injuries, a male
> > soldier who gets a female soldier pregnant is not that much different
> > from a soldier who wounds a buddy by a negligent discharge, is it?
> >
>
> You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
> a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
> It was HER choice to have unprotected sex,knowing fully that it could
> prevent her from performing her military obligations.
Right, she just grabbed the first male soldier and made him have sex
with her..
>
> It would be like she deliberately stepped in front of the guys
> weapon [grin] knowing he was going to fire it [grin],to keep with the
> negligent discharge analogy.
She DID, step in front of her fellow soldiers "gun"...
> the guy is certainly not responsible for -her- bad decisions.
You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
Alex Potter
> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
You must be getting old :)
--
Regards
Alex
Arved Sandstrom
I agree. And I have no sympathy for the "BC failed" argument, regardless
of whether it's "my condom leaked" or the "pill isn't 100%". Or for that
matter, a not uncommon male defense "she said she was on the pill and I
believed her". Fact is, you're in a war zone and you shouldn't be
getting it on with another soldier, because things can and will happen.
There's an argument here for permitting military brothels. Ever notice
how in WW2 and Vietnam overseas military personnel frequenting
prostitutes was accepted, if not always condoned. But since the '80's
nobody wants to talk about it. And God forbid that anyone would make any
suggestions re official establishments.
AHS
tankfixer
Alex Potter
> There's an argument here for permitting military brothels.
That only works for the men... girls get horny too, you know.
--
Regards
Alex
Peter Skelton
And the girls have no such imperative?
Peter Skelton
Arved Sandstrom
field brothel shouldn't cater to both sexes.
AHS
Alex Potter
Of course they do - I was using "guys" in a gender-free way there - I
should perhaps have been clearer.
--
Regards
Alex
Alex Potter
But then, the girls risk pregnancy...or are the men working there to be
certified vasectomised?
--
Regards
Alex
dott.Piergiorgio
> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
> :>
> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
> :
> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
> :
>
> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right.
yea, you're true, because catholic religious right is rather mild, if
not even progressive, compared to evangelical/born-again religious right....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> You can tell them what they must not do. You can't tell them (or
> force them) to do it the way you want when that way requires violating
> their bodily integrity.
I can point that your words, in the fingers of a rather macho, alpha
male, whose always put the might above everyone else, embodyng the worst
of the Abramitic Religions male-centered mindset is, to put it mildy,
rather contradictory, hypocrite & inappropriate.
dott.Piergiorgio
> tankfixer wrote on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:17:01 -0800:
>
>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
>
> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
> guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
I have also pointed out this; and also females has this "biological
imperative" as you write, and much, much stronger...
I'm rather sure that aboard a crippled ship with mixed crew out of
harm's way what happens inside of the shambles of staterooms & crew
compartments will be really private, and not necessarily initiated by
male sailors[1] and Officiers...
[1] Obviously this term and not the other is preferable in this context....
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
Be careful, Egregio Dottore. This "religious right" stuff simply does
not map from the US to Europe, and the *last* thing we need on smn is a
flurry of religious argument. I hold no brief for US "fundies", who
effectively cost me a lot of money about 20 years ago, but I will
freely admit at least two of their real qualities: generosity and
kindness. They may not be open of mind, but they are usually open of
heart, which is worth something. Indeed, worth a great deal.
In Europe, the "Catholic religious right" has a very, very bad track
record, most specifically including attitudes to anti-semitism, Fascism
and indeed Nazism that would appal, and rightly appal, your average US
"fundie". Think Archbishop (soi-disant, he was for a while deservedly
excommunicated) Lefebvre. An extremely nasty piece of work.
I am going to set out my own position once, and once only: I will have
nothing to do with religious arguments on this ng or anywhere else. And
I'll killfile anyone who does, even you, Pigi. Ti parlo come amico, lo
sai benissimo.
In a time of great trouble, I had what amounted to an encounter with a
higher power -- no, not just in the context of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Wracked with doubt, fear and hope, I returned very nervously to the
Kirk of my childhood, where an extremely wise (female) minister, who
understood doubt, fear and hope -- and also, which I didn't, faith --
helped me enormously and put no, as in no, religious pressure upon me
whatsoever. She helped vastly more than the ludicrous German
"psychotherapist" I had been bullied into seeing. So for me, it was
easiest to find my new way by going back to the old way, and I remain
proud to have rediscovered myself as a member of the Church of
Scotland. By "profession of faith", as it says in my commemorative
Bible. How much of the doctrine I actually believe; well, that's
between me and God Almighty. I also have very close family links with
the Dominican Order, for whom I have much respect; it's a strange old
world. They don't like Lefebvre any more than I do. (You'll get a
better dinner from the Dominicans than from the Church of Scotland,
can't be denied. But this stuff is not about dinner.)
I am now going to shout:
NO FUCKING RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS
And no further religious confessions from A. Lothian, Esq. None. Never.
I only write this much because the group is so shrunken, and I consider
almost everyone still left a friend, and certainly no one an enemy.
And a Happy Christmas to you all.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Jack Linthicum
Put it on the "extra duty" roster
Jack Linthicum
Cf The "Dud Eunuch" from "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
Forum"
William Black
Fact is, you're in a war zone and you shouldn't be
> getting it on with another soldier, because things can and will happen.
You can take it from me, you are not going to stop fit young people
between the ages of 18 and 30 shagging each other, no matter what the
penalty.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
dott.Piergiorgio
>>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
>> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
>> guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
>>
>> You must be getting old :)
>
> I am.. ;'(
Same here....
dott.Piergiorgio
Actually they have *much more* imperative, and this is also why the two
conversion-based abramithic religion have a strong misogyny....
Andrew Chaplin
news:H0pXm.65897$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
> tankfixer ha scritto:
>
>>>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
>>> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
>>> guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
>>>
>>> You must be getting old :)
>>
>> I am.. ;'(
>
> Same here....
As am I. It's still preferable to any of the alternatives.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
dott.Piergiorgio
> I agree. And I have no sympathy for the "BC failed" argument, regardless
> of whether it's "my condom leaked" or the "pill isn't 100%". Or for that
> matter, a not uncommon male defense "she said she was on the pill and I
> believed her". Fact is, you're in a war zone and you shouldn't be
> getting it on with another soldier, because things can and will happen.
>
> There's an argument here for permitting military brothels. Ever notice
> how in WW2 and Vietnam overseas military personnel frequenting
> prostitutes was accepted, if not always condoned. But since the '80's
> nobody wants to talk about it. And God forbid that anyone would make any
> suggestions re official establishments.
... and thanks to the Divine that the inevitable came (and in most cases
diagnosed and/or preempted) in the form of heavy harassment of POW and
the various stress-related syndromes (perhaps also phallic projection
into the rifle. if the various stories of shooting womens inside Iraqui
houses has some truth...)
I guess everyone can concur that with all these int'l flames against US
in the past years, the least desired thing in the former admin & US
military is being accused of more or less frequent rapes.... (and
perhaps the actual & true meaning & sense of the hijab has valid
significance & effectiveness....)
dott.Piergiorgio
>>> There's an argument here for permitting military brothels.
>>
>> That only works for the men... girls get horny too, you know.
>>
> Hey, I'm equal opportunity. :-) No reason why a modern military mobile
> field brothel shouldn't cater to both sexes.
there's a difference, perhaps unnatural because of the high impact of
two of the three major Abramitic religions: women has definitely zero
difficulties in finding free cocks...
Felix Reuthner
> You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
> a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
> It was HER choice to have unprotected sex,knowing fully that it could
> prevent her from performing her military obligations.
And it would be HIS choice do help her with her bad choice. I can't see
why the guy should not be prosecuted.
If soldier A asked soldier B to wound him, and B did it, they would both
be in trouble, wouldn't they?
Or don't they tell male soldiers where the babies come from?
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In this case, a 'self-inflicted' injury would be a religious
>happening. Last time that was claimed to have happened we got
>Christianity out of the deal...
The art work is interesting. Christ toting a cross made from about
twenty feet of railroad tie size timber. A four by four for the
upright and a two by four for the cross bar is all you need. And nails
were expensive. I believe the Romans usually tied them up with
reusable rope. As for nails through the palm, they would rip right
out. A staple around the wrist would actually work. Maybe special ones
with teeth. I mean the process was supposed to be protracted torture.
If that wasn't the idea they would have just stuck a dagger in the
heart.
Casady
Jim Yanik
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
>> a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
>> It was HER choice to have unprotected sex,knowing fully that it could
>> prevent her from performing her military obligations.
>
> And it would be HIS choice do help her with her bad choice. I can't see
> why the guy should not be prosecuted.
Well,you'd be prosecuting him for consensual voluntary sex,while the woman
is being punished for losing her military readiness.
> If soldier A asked soldier B to wound him, and B did it, they would both
> be in trouble, wouldn't they?
It's more like the woman intentionally stepping in front of the man's rifle
when he was firing.Not a "negligent discharge".
SHE is the one doing the gambling with HER military readiness.
It doesn't affect the man if SHE gets pregnant.
Perhaps he thought the woman was on birth control.
Women certainly do lie about that.
>
> Or don't they tell male soldiers where the babies come from?
>
more Political Correctness;
trying to make males complicit for a woman's bad choice.
No different than making a theft victim liable for what the thief does with
a stolen firearm,under the guise of "safe storage" violation.
Alan Lothian
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
> news:H0pXm.65897$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>
> > tankfixer ha scritto:
> >
> >>>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
> >>> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
> >>> guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
> >>>
> >>> You must be getting old :)
> >>
> >> I am.. ;'(
> >
> > Same here....
>
> As am I. It's still preferable to any of the alternatives.
My case is similar. I'll go along with Andrew, here.
Alex Potter
> In article <Xns9CE75193B6...@216.196.109.144>, Andrew Chaplin
> <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote
>> in news:H0pXm.65897$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>>
>> > tankfixer ha scritto:
>> >
>> >>>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
>> >>> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And
>> >>> these guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very*
>> >>> strong...
>> >>>
>> >>> You must be getting old :)
>> >>
>> >> I am.. ;'(
>> >
>> > Same here....
>>
>> As am I. It's still preferable to any of the alternatives.
>
> My case is similar. I'll go along with Andrew, here.
<AOL> :)
--
Regards
Alex
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FORCE a birth control implant on everyone and you've just created a
>bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen when they get back out of the
>combat zone and ANYTHING doesn't go the way they want it to.
>
In WWII, they didn't force people to use condoms, they did punish
those who got a social disease.
Casady
Alan Lothian
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Hmm. Here's something I wrote for Time-Life about 20 years ago: they
probably still own the copyright. The nasty details come from NEJM
articles in the mid-80s.
" The ancient art of hanging a man from a cross is a Roman skill that
the world has well lost: no instruction manual has been preserved. But
from the scanty records and a knowledge of anatomy it is possible to
reconstruct the precedure.
At least four executioners were needed, in order to avoid any chance of
an undignified scuffle... ... [the victim] was thrown on the ground,
and his arms were stretched out upon the crossbar. While three
[soldiers] gripped him firmly, a fourth placed a long, heavy nail not
in his hand but in his wrist, where the bones were strong enough to
bear his weight. The nail's position was important: a careless
executioner could sever a vein, bringing merciful oblivion within
minutes. [Probably the victim fainted at the first blow]... if so, the
soldiers' task would have been easier. They fixed his other wrist the
same way, then lifted the crossbar -- the *patibulum* -- onto its
upright. They then fixed his feet, probably a nail through both heels,
giving a sideways twist to the hanging body; heelbones so transfixed
have been found in a Jewish ossuary dating from the first century
AD.... ..
A skilfully-crucified man who had not been flogged too much beforehand
could sometimes last for days. During that time, he endured the most
exquisite agony and the most grotesque humiliation that the Roman world
had to offer. His weight hung almost entirely from his wrists; to
breathe in brought terrible pain but to breathe out he had to force
himself upwards from his pinioned, bleeding feet, push his elbows
downward and his shoulders out -- an unimaginable torment, repeated
every minute for the rest of his life. All the while, his flayed back
grated on the cross and the median nerves of his arms, crushed by those
well-placed nails in his wrist, sent messages of yet more pain. And
there were also the fiercest of muscle cramps to contend with.... There
were the flies, too, as he hung there, leaking blood, and urine, and
filth; and there were those of his own kind, also, who came to jeer at
him in his helpless misery."
Happy Christmas
Jack Linthicum
> In article <5mnsi5do8sksieh40bten63fqtd575u...@4ax.com>, Richard Casady
and the spear?
Alex Potter
> and the spear?
IIRC, that was to release the fluid in the chest cavity and prolong the
agony, but I expect Alan has the definitive answer.
--
Regards
Alex
Alan Lothian
<spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
So it is widely said. I am not entirely convinced, since there is
clearly a real risk of inflicting a rapidly fatal haemhorrage, thereby
spoiling everyone's fun. Anyway, there are no surviving eye-witnesses.
In the Gospels, mind you, they talk of breaking legs to end the
torment. It would, too: asphyxiation within a very short time.
Also worth noting the substantial theological content of the
crucifixion stories: the spear only appears in John, still generally
considered the latest of the Gospels, and the spear is thrust only
after Jesus' death. Links with all sorts of high theology. A lot of
people have spent a lot of time on this Spear business, as ten seconds
on Google will inform you. I am not one of them.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <pan.2009.12.20.22.47...@ap-consulting.co.uk>, Alex Potter
But I have a piece of the very spear used to kill Jesus and I want to
put it on E-Bay.
Matt Wiser
deployment-in case of shootdown and capture.
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa6pi51agtqffjp1m...@4ax.com...
> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
> :On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> :<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :
> :>THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
> :
> :It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
> :female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
> :
>
>
>
> --
> "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
> somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
> I am the law."
> -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:50:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:>Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
:>
:>:On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:11:40 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com>
:>:wrote:
:>:
:>:>In article <u5cpi55iq3frrn915...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:>:><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
:>:>>
:>:>> :Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
:>:>> :> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
:>:>> :> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>> :>
:>:>> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
:>:>> :>
:>:>> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
:>:>> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
:>:>> :
:>:>> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
:>:>> :
:>:>>
:>:>> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right. I would
:>:>> expect the folks who would do the screaming would be the Left, since
:>:>> forcing a contraceptive implant on someone certainly ought to be
:>:>> considered an infringement on individual rights and freedoms.
:>:>>
:>:>> People, even military people, are *NOT* property.
:>:
:>:If people are not property then by what right can rules be made about
:>:their natural bodily functions? Such as getting pregnant?
:>:I would scream far more loudly about that.
:>:
:>
:>The same way you can punish people who do other things to get out of a
:>combat zone, like shooting themselves in the foot.
:>
:>You can tell them what they must not do. You can't tell them (or
:>force them) to do it the way you want when that way requires violating
:>their bodily integrity.
:>
:>FORCE a birth control implant on everyone and you've just created a
:>bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen when they get back out of the
:>combat zone and ANYTHING doesn't go the way they want it to.
:
:How did the mess aoubt the GWI innoculations (which were ordered
:IIRC) work out? There's a long history of compulsory medication
:in the military.
:
Birth control isn't considered 'medication' in the sense that you can
be required to accept it.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:26:47 -0500, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
:
:Yep - they force you to forego your God-given right to experience
:yellow fever, cholera, tetanus and a slew of other interesting and
:sometimes fatal conditions so why a fuss about preventing pregnancy?
:It is, after all, a medical condition caused by - er -infection?
:
No, it's not. And that's the problem.
Fred J. McCall
:
:You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
:a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
:
Only if you're into the whole 'virgin birth' thing.
Otherwise, she had someone help her out with it.
:
:the guy is certainly not responsible for -her- bad decisions.
:
But he is responsible for his. This is just like shooting a buddy in
the foot so he can go home. Both parties are guilty.
Fred J. McCall
:Arved Sandstrom wrote on Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:54:34 +0000:
:
:> Alex Potter wrote:
:>> Arved Sandstrom wrote on Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:56:24 +0000:
:>>
:>>> There's an argument here for permitting military brothels.
:>>
:>> That only works for the men... girls get horny too, you know.
:>>
:> Hey, I'm equal opportunity. :-) No reason why a modern military mobile
:> field brothel shouldn't cater to both sexes.
:>
:> AHS
:
:But then, the girls risk pregnancy...or are the men working there to be
:certified vasectomised?
:
One would assume that the folks in the brothels were all using birth
control and checked for diseases...
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Peter Skelton
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reference please
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
I generously fixed for him, wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:news:fa6pi51agtqffjp1m...@4ax.com...
:> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
:>
:> :On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:32:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
:> :<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :
:> :>THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
:> :
:> :It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
:> :female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
:> :
:>
:> Probably against the law to do that.
:>
:
:ACtually, no. But female aircrew are strongly advised to do so before
:deployment-in case of shootdown and capture.
:
Actually, I'd bet yeah. FORCING contraception or sterilization on
anyone in the United States has had a real foul odor ever since they
did it to a bunch mentally challenged folks back in the '50s or '60s.
This isn't covered under the 'military must accept medical treatment'
rules. It would take Congressional action to make it specifically
legal.
--
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion ...
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to Shay's Rebellion
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:
:> :>> THis ought to put a clamp on mixed crew submarines
:> :>
:> :> It would never occur to the bright sparks to merely order that any
:> :> female going to Iraq have a contraceptive implant?
:> :
:> :because the so-called religious right will scream loudly....
:> :
:>
:> Poppycock! Our religious right isn't your religious right.
:
:yea, you're true, because catholic religious right is rather mild, if
:not even progressive, compared to evangelical/born-again religious right....
:
Yes, but our religious right doesn't consider contraception a sin that
will send you to Hell. Yours does.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:>
:> You can tell them what they must not do. You can't tell them (or
:> force them) to do it the way you want when that way requires violating
:> their bodily integrity.
:>
:
:I can point that your words, in the fingers of a rather macho, alpha
:male, whose always put the might above everyone else, embodyng the worst
:of the Abramitic Religions male-centered mindset is, to put it mildy,
:rather contradictory, hypocrite & inappropriate.
:
You can point to whatever you like, but it's merely an illustration of
how poorly you understand me and what I'm saying if the preceding is
the conclusion you arrive at.
You also seem to be missing the point. I'm not telling anyone they
CAN'T use contraception. I'm telling you you cannot FORCIBLY impose
it on anyone.
You're the one who sounds like you're embodying "the worst of the
Abramitic Religions male-centered mindset is, to put it mildy, rather
contradictory, hypocrite & inappropriate", not me.
Fred J. McCall
:
:You can take it from me, you are not going to stop fit young people
:between the ages of 18 and 30 shagging each other, no matter what the
:penalty.
:
Which is why I'm against putting people who potentially want to have
sex with each other in the same unit. This is why "don't ask, don't
tell" makes some amount of sense...
--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Fred J. McCall
:"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
:news:H0pXm.65897$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
:
:> tankfixer ha scritto:
:>
:>>>> You have problems keeping it zipped up ?
:>>> I certainly did when I was a testosterone-fuelled teenager. And these
:>>> guys are in harms way, so the biological imperative is *very* strong...
:>>>
:>>> You must be getting old :)
:>>
:>> I am.. ;'(
:>
:> Same here....
:
:As am I. It's still preferable to any of the alternatives.
:
Not always...
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
tankfixer
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :You can take it from me, you are not going to stop fit young people
> :between the ages of 18 and 30 shagging each other, no matter what the
> :penalty.
> :
>
> Which is why I'm against putting people who potentially want to have
> sex with each other in the same unit. This is why "don't ask, don't
> tell" makes some amount of sense...
When we mobilized a maintenance company a couple of years back there
were two married couples on the troop list..
In each case one was kept back..
Fred J. McCall
:Felix Reuthner <sp...@reuthner.net> wrote in news:hgli7i$ivo$1...@online.de:
:
:> Jim Yanik wrote:
:>
:>> You can't see the difference? what's wrong with you?
:>> a pregnancy is a SELF-inflicted wound.
:>> It was HER choice to have unprotected sex,knowing fully that it could
:>> prevent her from performing her military obligations.
:>
:> And it would be HIS choice do help her with her bad choice. I can't see
:> why the guy should not be prosecuted.
:
:Well,you'd be prosecuting him for consensual voluntary sex,while the woman
:is being punished for losing her military readiness.
:
No, you'd be prosecuting him for assisting her in losing her military
readiness.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:50:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:
Uh, do you have a point there?
Jack Linthicum
Shouldn't the word be "courts-martial"?
"I see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a female
soldier by court martial for a violation ... none. I fully intend to
handle these cases through lesser disciplinary action."
Army Backs Off Controversial Court-Martials-For-Pregnancies Policy
Jillian Rayfield | December 22, 2009, 11:11AM
In the wake of controversy and criticism, Major General Anthony Cucolo
III has backed away from a new military policy that would allow court-
martials for pregnancies.
Last week, we reported that a new military policy that went into
effect on November 4 would allow court-martials and jail time for men
and women serving in Iraq should they become pregnant or impregnate
another solider.
Today, Cucolo tried to qualify the policy, telling ABC in a written
statement: "I see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a
female soldier by court martial for a violation ... none. I fully
intend to handle these cases through lesser disciplinary action."
He continued: "Applying this criteria is intended to promote
thoughtful and responsible behavior. I wanted all my soldiers to think
before they act, before they make a personal choice that has
consequences."
Eugene Griessel
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 12:11�pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Shouldn't the word be "courts-martial"?
Around these parts it is. Dunno what you rebels do, though!
>Army Backs Off Controversial Court-Martials-For-Pregnancies Policy
Didn't take him long to realise he'd put his foot in it. I sympathise
with the problem the General has but don't have sympathy for the way
he tried to reach his goal. Making pregnancy a crime would win him
very little support anywhere.
Eugene L Griessel
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is of more use
than a complex, incomprehensible truth.
- I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
BlackBeard
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:21:38 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
Make Oral sex mandatory!
BB
Jack Linthicum
Could there be a connection between this letter and the General
withdrawing his order?
Four Dem Senators Sign Letter Opposing Courts-Martial-For-Pregnancy
Policy
Jillian Rayfield | December 22, 2009, 5:56PM
Four senators sent a letter today to Army Secretary John McHugh
demanding that he rescind a new policy that allows for courts-martial
of soldiers who get pregnant.
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-
NH), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have all signed a letter about
Major General Anthony Cucolo III's policy. Cucolo today defended the
controversial new order.
The policy, which was enacted November 4, calls for military personnel
serving in Iraq to face jail time or a court martial for becoming
pregnant or impregnating another soldier while deployed.
The senators wrote: "We can think of no greater deterrent to women
contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman
being severely punished simply for conceiving a child. This defies
comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this
policy."
Here's the full text:
December 22, 2009
The Honorable John McHugh
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0101
Dear Secretary McHugh:
It has come to our attention that Major General Anthony Cucolo
III--the Commander of Multi-National Division-North, Iraq--has
implemented a stricter policy that criminalizes pregnancy for members
of the United States Armed Forces under his command and for others
"serving with, employed by, or accompanying" the military. While we
fully understand and appreciate the demands facing both commanders and
service members in Iraq, we believe this policy is deeply misguided
and must be immediately rescinded.
Under the policy, it is possible to face punishment, including
imprisonment, for "becoming pregnant, or impregnating a Soldier, while
assigned to the Task Force Marne" Area of Operations. The policy even
extends to married couples jointly serving in the warzone.
Although Major General Cucolo stated today that a pregnant soldier
would not necessarily be punished by court-martialunder this policy,
we believe the threat of criminal sanctions in the case of pregnancy
goes far beyond what is needed to maintain good order and discipline.
This policy could encourage female soldiers to delay seeking critical
medical care with potentially serious consequences for mother and
child.
This policy also undermines efforts to enhance benefits and
services so that dual military couples can continue to serve. We can
think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career
than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for
conceiving a child. This defies comprehension.
As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy. Thank you
for your prompt consideration of this most important request, and for
your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senator
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
United States Senator
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
Mark Borgerson
@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, spk...@msn.com says...
Even in the Submarine Service??? ;-)
Mark Borgerson
BlackBeard
> In article <dde3b6e8-be82-46ec-a20b-5f11f794ba53
Once they go Co-ed, damn right! ;)
Eugene Griessel
It give new meaning to the term "going down", I suppose.
Eugene L Griessel
The great weakness of our age, is the inability
to distinguish our needs from our greeds.
Alan Lothian
Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
> It give new meaning to the term "going down", I suppose.
> Eugene L Griessel
"Stop that damned panting! We're rigged for silent running."
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>In article <t4c3j55ctb0j86fcf...@4ax.com>, Eugene
>Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>>
>> It give new meaning to the term "going down", I suppose.
>> Eugene L Griessel
>
>"Stop that damned panting! We're rigged for silent running."
"Sonar says they can hear babies crying - that's what they say, sir!"
loosely paraphrased from Operation Petticoat.
Eugene L Griessel
To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining
faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, ... and possibly
a tragic one. - Hermann Hesse
Arved Sandstrom
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:21:38 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 12:11 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't the word be "courts-martial"?
>
>
> Around these parts it is. Dunno what you rebels do, though!
>
>> Army Backs Off Controversial Court-Martials-For-Pregnancies Policy
>
> Didn't take him long to realise he'd put his foot in it. I sympathise
> with the problem the General has but don't have sympathy for the way
> he tried to reach his goal. Making pregnancy a crime would win him
> very little support anywhere.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
Do you have any suggestions for any other way to reach that goal? You
say you don't have much sympathy for the way picked by the general in
question. Fair enough, but what other way is there? Other than the
status quo, that is.
Consider the fact that the US military already has fairly stringent
enlistment standards related to number of dependents and single
parenthood. These are pragmatic mission-oriented regulations that
definitely interfere with some folks' family child-bearing plans and the
simultaneous wish to be in the armed forces. But not too many people
scream about the unfairness of those standards, not that I've heard.
General Cucolo didn't put his foot in anything. He had the balls to call
the kettle black. Pregnancy while deployed is a disciplinary infraction,
ought to be considered as an offense, and he had the guts to call it a
CM offense, although now PR and PC is making him back down. Furthermore,
no small percentage of these mothers-to-be are going to be single
parents (unless we force marriage on them and their partners, which
definitely won't fly), which is also an unacceptable outcome for the US
military, which in most cases is going to have to discharge these people
(ideally with less than honorable).
In some cases these pregnancies are not malingering, since there is no
intent to avoid service. Just irresponsibility and negligence. In other
cases there's no question but that the pregnancy was hoped for. In
either case what's the point in giving them a slap on the wrist (a NJP)?
Since they are pregnant you'd probably have some difficulty in handing
out CC in any case, further watering down the punishment.
The way I look at it is, since a common course of action would be an OTH
separation anyhow, why not send a signal and make it somewhat more
educational? Like a BCD?
AHS
Eugene Griessel
Why not make catching the flu a court martial offence?
I was going to write a long, reasoned argument here - in fact finished
a couple of paragraphs - but decided not to as nobody ever reads what
I post anyway.
Eugene L Griessel
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
William Black
While the threat of a Court martial followed by rapid back peddaling
after serious political outrage sounds terribly American I have no idea
what the British do.
Probably a swift posting to some ghastly station in the UK.
"Ah, Corporal Randy, you've been posted back to UK, RAF Benbecula
security detail... You've been posted there because of your special
abilities, so think of it as promotion really..."
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Alan Lothian
Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
> I was going to write a long, reasoned argument here - in fact finished
> a couple of paragraphs - but decided not to as nobody ever reads what
> I post anyway.
Poor diddums. Never fear, Eugene. I read your posts, as, it seems, does
the lovely Nilita when she can find time to spare from smearing herself
with myrrh.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>In article <ott3j5tig6pc77jsq...@4ax.com>, Eugene
>Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>> I was going to write a long, reasoned argument here - in fact finished
>> a couple of paragraphs - but decided not to as nobody ever reads what
>> I post anyway.
>
>Poor diddums. Never fear, Eugene. I read your posts, as, it seems, does
>the lovely Nilita when she can find time to spare from smearing herself
>with myrrh.
I find myself in a hyperdepressive mood - occassioned by attempting
(and failing) to translate a stunning piece of poetry. The poem
itself would send even Leonard Cohen looking for the razor blades so
bleak is its imagery.
Eugene Griessel
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:12:55 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <t4c3j55ctb0j86fcf...@4ax.com>, Eugene
>>> Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It give new meaning to the term "going down", I suppose.
>>>> Eugene L Griessel
>>> "Stop that damned panting! We're rigged for silent running."
>>
>> "Sonar says they can hear babies crying - that's what they say, sir!"
>> loosely paraphrased from Operation Petticoat.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>>
>> To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining
>> faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, ... and possibly
>> a tragic one. - Hermann Hesse
>>
>
>While the threat of a Court martial followed by rapid back peddaling
>after serious political outrage sounds terribly American I have no idea
>what the British do.
>
>Probably a swift posting to some ghastly station in the UK.
>
>"Ah, Corporal Randy, you've been posted back to UK, RAF Benbecula
>security detail... You've been posted there because of your special
>abilities, so think of it as promotion really..."
Whatever happened to the carrier pigeon loft on Rockall that used to
be the posting of choice in this sort of case? RSPCA probably had it
shut down.....
Eugene L Griessel
Give a woman an inch - and she will try to park a car in it.
William Black
The old RAF punishment station was RAF Saxa Vord on Unst, an island so
windy that there are no trees, which required a 'lightening alarm'
because the tallest thing in the island in a thunderstorm is an RAF man
walking about...
The only postings available were '6 months, unaccompanied'.
It closed in 2006.
Richard Casady
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>Why not make catching the flu a court martial offence?
Getting a severe sunburn can be, if you are unable to do your job
because of it. I was in the USAF and two broken legs would not have
affected my ability to do my desk job by much. When I was typing
discharges, they simply kicked you out if you got pregnant.
Casady
Jim Yanik
news:fjd4j59eeb79592q5...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:03:23 +0200, Eugene Griessel
><eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>>
>>Why not make catching the flu a court martial offence?
DUH,you can't control catching the flu. you can catch it without even
realizing you've been exposed.
Women certainly CAN control their getting pregnant.
They have several methods of birth control available,they can demand their
partner use a condom,and they can always "say no".
Women should be responsible for their own bodies and choices,no one else.
It's the woman's choice to have unprotected sex or not,and HER body that
gets pregnant;HER responsibility.
Punishing a guy for a woman letting herself get pregnant during consensual
sex is solely Political Correctness;Liberal Horsecrap.
HE is not responsible for HER body.(and it's wrong to make it so)
>
> Getting a severe sunburn can be, if you are unable to do your job
> because of it. I was in the USAF and two broken legs would not have
> affected my ability to do my desk job by much. When I was typing
> discharges, they simply kicked you out if you got pregnant.
>
> Casady
>
getting sunburned is a person's bad choice,that they stayed out in the sun
too long. I did that while at Lowry,went to Mile High Raceway drag races
and faced the sun the whole day,got burned enough that having keys in my
pockets hurt. I still performed my duties.
It's a lot easier getting sunburned at higher elevations!
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>Richard Casady <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:fjd4j59eeb79592q5...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:03:23 +0200, Eugene Griessel
>><eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Why not make catching the flu a court martial offence?
>
>DUH,you can't control catching the flu. you can catch it without even
>realizing you've been exposed.
>Women certainly CAN control their getting pregnant.
>They have several methods of birth control available,they can demand their
>partner use a condom,and they can always "say no".
Show us a 100% effective birth control method, other than complete
abstinence?
>Women should be responsible for their own bodies and choices,no one else.
>It's the woman's choice to have unprotected sex or not,and HER body that
>gets pregnant;HER responsibility.
>
>Punishing a guy for a woman letting herself get pregnant during consensual
>sex is solely Political Correctness;Liberal Horsecrap.
>HE is not responsible for HER body.(and it's wrong to make it so)
Ah, the chauvinistic approach! You pull wings off flies too, don't
you?
The issue is not about pregnancy per se - the issue is about control
of humans. But you probably approve of that - so long as you are
doing the controlling. Maybe a nice regulation forcing all males in
the combat zone to be castrated might not come amiss.
Eugene L Griessel
People who want to share their religious views with you almost never
want you to share yours with them.
Richard Casady
<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>Ah, the chauvinistic approach! You pull wings off flies too, don't
>you?
Pulling wings off flies betrays a profound disconnect from reality.
You see they don't know the difference. We used to have a pet bass. It
would eat two dozen goldfish in two minutes. The fish are also too
stupid to appreciate it. It died but now we have a goldfish eating
snapping turtle named ' Boltcutter '. But I digress.
Casady
Richard Casady
wrote:
>It's a lot easier getting sunburned at higher elevations!
Not that hard at sea level when you spend an entire day at the beach
swimming and drinking. If you want to jump out of your skin, step on
an conch. When I have been outdoors at high altitude, I have been
skiing with no skin exposed. It is easy to burn at 10 000 feet with
the snow reflecting the UV. You see reddened faces, but not mine.
Casady
Alan Lothian
Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:32:30 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ott3j5tig6pc77jsq...@4ax.com>, Eugene
> >Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I was going to write a long, reasoned argument here - in fact finished
> >> a couple of paragraphs - but decided not to as nobody ever reads what
> >> I post anyway.
> >
> >Poor diddums. Never fear, Eugene. I read your posts, as, it seems, does
> >the lovely Nilita when she can find time to spare from smearing herself
> >with myrrh.
>
> I find myself in a hyperdepressive mood - occassioned by attempting
> (and failing) to translate a stunning piece of poetry.
Translating poetry is a mug's game, I'm afraid. You don't have to be a
great poet in your own language, but you *do* have to be at least
passable at the art. Try this micropoem if you have any Italian:
Soldati
si sta
come d�autunno
sugli alberi
le foglie
Giuseppe Ungaretti 1888-1970
It's the "si sta" that's the killer. And that's the whole poem, by the
way. The curious thing is that it is not actually impossible to
translate it (into a poem, that is), just very, very difficult. I've
had a go at bits of Dante myself, and got myself into a state not too
dissimilar from the one you ascribe to yourself. I gave it up and took
to serious drinking instead.
> The poem
> itself would send even Leonard Cohen looking for the razor blades so
> bleak is its imagery.
Tell you what: take a break, and go and bang your head against a brick
wall. You'll feel better when you stop.
Alan Lothian
<richar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
When I was a nasty little kid growing up with other nasty little kids,
the trick was to drop a Great Diving Beetle larva into someone other
kid's fishtank full of carefully-captured minnows & sticklebacks.
Still, I digress, too. 'Tis the season to be off-topic, but at least
there is something vaguely marine about GDB larvae. Only vaguely, I
concede at once.
BlackBeard
>
> Show us a 100% effective birth control method, other than complete
> abstinence?
I believe I already have. ;)
BB
Jim Yanik
news:e1j4j5dbf6b28jooi...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:53:26 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>Richard Casady <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:fjd4j59eeb79592q5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:03:23 +0200, Eugene Griessel
>>><eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why not make catching the flu a court martial offence?
>>
>>DUH,you can't control catching the flu. you can catch it without even
>>realizing you've been exposed.
>>Women certainly CAN control their getting pregnant.
>>They have several methods of birth control available,they can demand
>>their partner use a condom,and they can always "say no".
>
> Show us a 100% effective birth control method, other than complete
> abstinence?
hey,use a layered defense;pill,diaphragm,condom.
Or abort,or choose to not have sex.
"No" is always an option,and is 100% effective.(otherwise,it's rape.)
But the REAL problem is that the women getting pregnant are NOT using birth
control.
>
>>Women should be responsible for their own bodies and choices,no one
>>else. It's the woman's choice to have unprotected sex or not,and HER
>>body that gets pregnant;HER responsibility.
>>
>>Punishing a guy for a woman letting herself get pregnant during
>>consensual sex is solely Political Correctness;Liberal Horsecrap.
>>HE is not responsible for HER body.(and it's wrong to make it so)
>
> Ah, the chauvinistic approach!
No,it's plain old common sense.
> You pull wings off flies too, don't
> you?
Why,is that one of YOUR hobbies?
I don't think of such things,there must be something wrong with you.
Seek professional help.
>
> The issue is not about pregnancy per se - the issue is about control
> of humans.
In this case,no it's not.
It's about military personnel and their readiness to do the military job
they contracted to do. It's a special case,a defense matter.
> But you probably approve of that - so long as you are
> doing the controlling. Maybe a nice regulation forcing all males in
> the combat zone to be castrated might not come amiss.
Methinks you're channelling your own mindset there.
Besides,it's not the males that are getting pregnant and losing their
military readiness.
It's not their problem,except for the socialist weenies that don't believe
in personal responsibility -artificially making- it a problem for them.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> People who want to share their religious views with you almost
> never want you to share yours with them.
>
> - I post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
>
--
Jim Yanik
it's about as relevant as Eugene's response.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> In article <l944j5ldqg55tm2ha...@4ax.com>, Eugene
> Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> Translating poetry is a mug's game, I'm afraid.
sheesh...surely,son, you MUST be aware that this mindless crap is off topic, and the
likes of you are fucking up our newsgroup.
please control yourself...thank you
;-)
dott.Piergiorgio
> Soldati
>
> si sta
> come d�autunno
> sugli alberi
> le foglie
>
>
> Giuseppe Ungaretti 1888-1970
>
> It's the "si sta" that's the killer. And that's the whole poem, by the
> way. The curious thing is that it is not actually impossible to
> translate it (into a poem, that is), just very, very difficult. I've
> had a go at bits of Dante myself, and got myself into a state not too
> dissimilar from the one you ascribe to yourself. I gave it up and took
> to serious drinking instead.
uh, excuse me, Alan, but "standing" wasn't a somewhat valid translation
of the meaning of "si sta" ?
(the gist of the poetry is that soldiers are like fall leaves, whose can
fall from the tree every instant (and I'm *REALLY* surprised how Maestro
Ungaretti has done not only an haiku-like poetry, but also with a *very*
Japanese tonality in it...))
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Alan Lothian ha scritto:
>
> > Soldati
> >
> > si sta
> > come d�autunno
> > sugli alberi
> > le foglie
> >
> >
> > Giuseppe Ungaretti 1888-1970
> >
> > It's the "si sta" that's the killer. And that's the whole poem, by the
> > way. The curious thing is that it is not actually impossible to
> > translate it (into a poem, that is), just very, very difficult. I've
> > had a go at bits of Dante myself, and got myself into a state not too
> > dissimilar from the one you ascribe to yourself. I gave it up and took
> > to serious drinking instead.
>
> uh, excuse me, Alan, but "standing" wasn't a somewhat valid translation
> of the meaning of "si sta" ?
I don't think it works in English for this poem. You have to rewrite
the line, somehow, without losing cadence or meaning. That, of course,
is why the whole business is so damned *difficult*. It isn't just
straight meaning you're after. Why did Ungaretti write "si sta" and not
"stanno"? Because he's a poet. Oh, well, it's lunchtime. I will pour
myself a glass of primeur and have a go.....
they wait
as in autumn
the trees
bear leaves
That's not too bad, but in effect I have just written a different poem.
I've narrowed Ungaretti's sfumature, for a start. I like "bear" but
it's not really what old Giuseppe wrote. And I have certainly forced
*my* interpretation on the first line, and turned the last two round.
OK, one more effort and that's it, at least until malt whisky time. And
I'll haiku it properly: sorry about that, Ungaretti.
They stand there
firm as the leaves
on a tree in autumn
Once again, I have suppressed (or chosen between) Ungaretti's careful
ambiguities. Enough. If I carry on like this I will find myself in
Eugene's unhappy situation, and no one will read any of my posts ever
again. "They hang there" might be better... aaaaargh.
>
> (the gist of the poetry is that soldiers are like fall leaves, whose can
> fall from the tree every instant (and I'm *REALLY* surprised how Maestro
> Ungaretti has done not only an haiku-like poetry, but also with a *very*
> Japanese tonality in it...))
>
Thought that myself, ever since I first read the thing. If the poem was
longer, it would be *much* easier to translate. Ungaretti knew his
business, that's for sure. Hai!
Now returning you to sci.military.naval, the fierce seafaring group
that does not tolerate off-topic posts.
Obsmn: how to translate into Italian "Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum".
And a Happy Christmas to each and to all.