Who I am and why I support Big Science

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Bowery

unread,
Jun 29, 1993, 3:16:54 AM6/29/93
to
There have been some questions about who I am and what my positions
are. Here are the relevant details for sci.space readers:

As chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I have, over the
last 5 or so years, been the principle activist promoting the Launch
Services Purchase Act of 1990 and the launch voucher provision of the
1992 NASA authorization.

To preempt some noise:

Allen Sherzer has yet to apologize to me for his repeated slanders
in this forum 2 years ago, declaring that my contributions to the
passage of the LSPA were insignificant compared to those of Glenn
Reynolds, then chairman of the legislative committee of the National
Space Society. However, during congressional hearings on space
commercialization, the LSPA's sponsor, Congressman Packard, gave me
a personal introduction (the only panelist out of over 10 to receive
such an introduction) and my organization credit for passage of the LSPA.
Congressman Packard did so with Glenn Reynolds sitting next to me on
the same panel -- and he did not mention Glenn Reynolds or the NSS.
This is in the Congressional Record and on video tape. Allen Sherzer's
words are in the sci.space archives of late spring to early summer
1991. I encourage those with access to the sci.space archives to
retrieve them and see exactly what Allen Sherzer said and the manner
in which he said it.

I've been involved in several other, as yet unsuccessful, legislative
efforts to reform NASA, DoE (primarily fusion), NSF and DARPA. In so
doing I've come across gross inefficiencies in technology development --
inefficiencies that some small high technology startups were ready to
fill with technical advances of great economic and social import.
The government agencies I just mentioned see these high technology
startups, not as vital partners, but as deadly political threats to the
credibility of those, within the agencies, that picked incorrect
technical directions. These government-funded individuals drive
funding away from those who would bring us critically needed technical
advances -- rather than working with and help them.

The dollars we spend on NASA, DoE, DARPA and NSF to promote technology
are actually used to suppress this country's technology in a frighteningly
effective manner. But when one looks at the political incentives of these
institutions, one wonders how anyone could believe it to be otherwise.

My first and most tragic experience in this area was George Koopman's
statement to me, made in person just before his untimely death, that
NASA had been relentlessly driving his suppliers and investors away
from doing business with his company, AMROC. NASA appeared to reverse
its behavior in a tokenistic manner just prior to Koopman's death. The
first test of an AMROC booster, shortly thereafter, failed and AMROC was
forced into capitulation with established aerospace firms. This pattern
of hostile behavior from NASA, combined with the means, motive and
opportunity, leave room for reasonable suspicions of murder against
individuals within or funded by NASA.

This is only one story and I wasn't even involved in trying to garner
support for AMROC at that time. Other high technology companies I have
had the privilege of working with have experienced similar hostilities
from NASA, DoE, DARPA and NSF, and they experience these hostilities in
proportion to the significance (political visibility) and viability of
the technology they are pursuing.

Congressional oversight committees which are supposed to put a stop to
this sort of activity have no incentive to do so and efforts to get
them to investigate are futile. Their only real incentive is to increase
the bugets of those who they oversee and require political payback via
hegemoney.

This is why technology development programs become the worst possible
way to invest the taxpayer's money -- worse even than monstrously expensive
and unproductive production systems like space shuttles and space stations.

In general, technology is not an objective product. I does not usually
succeed or fail with respect to a well defined objective. Even if a
test device explodes, it can be portrayed as an expected outcome of a
test. A technology development program can always be declared a
success -- and its obvious shortcomings attributed to "limited funding".

The more important a potential technology, the more money can be thrown
at a program proclaiming itself to be delivering that potential, without
any political repercussions for lack of success. This would seem to
present an irresistable opportunity for exploitation and fraud --

but it is worse than that.

When enough time has elapsed, the individuals who exploit these
situations find themselves confronted by "inventors in garages"
(sometimes literally) who, working quietly, on the basis of
real innovation and serendipity from other fields not suppressed
during that period, are in a position to actually achieve the
stated goals of the technology program on a budget and timescale
that is frequently orders of magnitude lower than that anticipated
by the managers of the government program. This is a prospect
so terrifying to those working on the government-funded programs
that a cohesive quasi-religious cult of denial develops around the
mainline program as the inventors are, inevitably, treated as
charlatans or even satan-spawn.

Since these technologies are justifying large government programs,
it is a safe bet that there are big economic paybacks forseen from
their successful development and application -- a fact that is not
lost on the inventors. Inventors typically have to invest their
lives on a long-shot, and are accutely aware of the role that profit
plays in free enterprise, as the reward for risk-taking. Justifiably,
they want to see some highly deserved rewards for their labors.
They seek out private investors, who are generally leary of high-risk
projects -- regardless of how great the profits might be. There
are very few technically competent wealthy, due to profoundly
destructive biases in our tax and legal systems and it takes
hard-nosed technical competence and accurate imagination to discriminate
between a pipe-dream and the next technology revolution.

Thus it is relatively easy for the government-funded "technologist"
to scare the technically illiterate investors away from the
"crackpot" inventor. Since the government's money is under
their control anyway, it is trivally easy to prevent taxpayer's
money from filling the investment gap they, themselves, helped create.

The space station, the space shuttle, the super conducting supercollider
and other exceedingly large and centralized programs within the
government take money away from government-funded technologists who
are then forced to look for other sources of support. They then
become much less likely to slander external inventors who may
become their future employers, and may even become supportive of
these inventors, both within and outside of government.

Further, the very large and centralized programs are much more
likely to fail and do so in such a way that the taxpayer can recognize
as a betrayal of his trust. They are programs through which fraud
is more easily exposed than vague "technology development" programs.
This means the agencies responsible for technology suppression
can be held to account for their fraud in these types of programs.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that political support of
government big science is highly valuable because it helps bring down
the entire system that suppresses development of critical technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choose truth or peace, here and now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

fred j mccall 575-3539

unread,
Jun 29, 1993, 1:55:27 PM6/29/93
to
In <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu> j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>There have been some questions about who I am and what my positions
>are. Here are the relevant details for sci.space readers:
>

[Anti-Sherzer, 'look how important Jim Bowery is' tirade deleted.]

Nobody cares, Jim. If you wonder why people treat you like a
crackpot, stand by. You provide the evidence yourself.

>This pattern
>of hostile behavior from NASA, combined with the means, motive and
>opportunity, leave room for reasonable suspicions of murder against
>individuals within or funded by NASA.

One could wish that this was further evidence that Jim Bowery actually
has a sense of humour, but it isn't. He actually seriously believes
something this silly, apparently. Then he wonders when people
question his credibility, which he himself demolishes with
lunatic-fringe statements like this.

Simple question, Jim. If you are as important as you think you are
and NASA is peopled by the arch-demons you believe it is, why are you
still alive?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred....@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Greg Mccrory

unread,
Jun 29, 1993, 1:27:00 PM6/29/93
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 1993 j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> There have been some questions about who I am and what my positions
> are. Here are the relevant details for sci.space readers:
>
> As chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I have, over the
> last 5 or so years, been the principle activist promoting the Launch
> Services Purchase Act of 1990 and the launch voucher provision of the
> 1992 NASA authorization.

[ meaningless drivel deleted for brevity ]

Now I know who you are! You're one of those "scientist" friends
of Rush Limbaugh who calls in from time to time to explain the
"facts" to him and his listeners. That's good. Keep it up; your
credibility is getting stronger all the time.

/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| Greg McCrory * Metairie, LA * greg.m...@ozonehole.com |
\--------------------------------------------------------------/

---
* JABBER v1.2 * The best defense against logic is stupidity.

----
The Ozone Hole BBS * SKYDIVE New Orleans! * (504)891-3142 * V.32bis/HST

David B. Mckissock

unread,
Jun 29, 1993, 4:31:00 PM6/29/93
to
In article <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu>, j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...

> I've been involved in several other, as yet unsuccessful,
> legislative efforts to reform NASA, DoE (primarily fusion),
> NSF and DARPA.

Yo buddy, in case you haven't heard, the last President
appointed a guy named Dan Goldin to head NASA, and since
his first day on the job in early 1992 he has been on
a big-time campaign to reform NASA. Let's talk about Goldin's reforms
in technology development areas. Goldin has been very critical of
technology development activities that have gone on year after
year with the fine research continuing but nobody *using* the
technology that's been developed. In this era of TQM (another
Goldin reform at NASA), Goldin has the technology development
crowd defining their customers - the idea is if the development
community cannot find a user for the technology they are
developing, bye-bye funding.

> I've come across gross inefficiencies in technology development
> -- inefficiencies that some small high technology startups
> were ready to fill with technical advances of great economic
> and social import. The government agencies I just mentioned see
> these high technology startups, not as vital partners, but as
> deadly political threats to the credibility of those, within
> the agencies, that picked incorrect technical directions.
> These government-funded individuals drive funding away from
> those who would bring us critically needed technical
> advances -- rather than working with and help them.

First off, apparently it's obvious to you which technologies are
"of great economic and social import" and should therefore
receive generous funding, and the other technologies which the
government chooses to fund that are "incorrect technical
directions." It seems to me one person's "great economic and
social import" could very well be another person's "incorrect
technical direction." I have personally reviewed some of the
unsolicited Small Business Innovation Research proposals sent to
NASA Lewis. I assume the author of each proposal feels his/her
idea is "of great economic and social import." I have recommended
rejecting some of the proposals, as the author either didn't do
his/her homework (i.e. the author did not look into what papers
have been already published on the topic), or they want funding
to study the proverbial perpetual motion machine.

As I mentioned earlier, Goldin is trying to re-direct the
technology development program. I personally think the
development activities on the aeronautics side of NASA have been
closely coordinated with the "users" - the US aviation industry
(comments from Mary @ Dryden are welcome), while the aerospace
development activities would do well to emulate the aeronautics
activities.

Have you ever read a publication like NASA Lewis 1992 Research
and Technology report (NASA Technical Memorandum 105924)? The
document summarizes the progress made during the year in various
technology development programs. Let's look at a few of them
which the government did fund, and let the readers decide if
we're picking "incorrect technical directions" instead of the
optimum development activities of "great economic and social
import." ...

----------------------------------------------------------
Broad-Speed-Range Engines Proposed for Advanced High-Speed Tilt
Rotor Transports
Advanced tilt rotor transports may help alleviate airport
overcrowding without building new larger airfields. This aircraft
takes off and lands vertically with the rotors in a horizontal
position.

Takeoff and landing require a high-subsonic rotor tip velocity.
However, for quiet, efficient cruise operation the sum of the
rotor tip speed due to rotation and that due to forward velocity
must remain subsonic. The rotor, now acting as a propeller, must
rotate as much as 50% slower than during takeoff and landing.
Reducing the engine rotational speed to do this would result in
18% larger engines with 20% worse specific fuel consumption.

The solution is to develop new engine systems that can run
efficiently at both high and low speeds while operating at full
power - the broad-speed-range engine. As part of the contracted
efforts Allison Gas Turbine Division of GM and General Electric
studied several concepts. Three proved most attractive - reduced-
stage-loading power turbine adds stages to the turbine, the
counterrotating turbine, and the two-speed shiftable
transmission.

------------------------------------------------
Ceramic Turbine Stage Components Tested to 2500F
In order to exploit the high-temperature performance potential of
the gas turbine engine without using strategic materials or
exotic hot-section cooling techniques, NASA Lewis is working to
develop a ceramic component technology base. As part of the US
DOE Automotive Gas Turbine Program, the Advanced Turbine
Technology Applications Project is developing structural ceramic
hot-flow-path component technology for advanced small gas turbine
engines. These engines, designed to operate at temperatures to
2500F, have the potential for significantly less fuel consumption
than either metal turbine engines or conventional piston engines.
In addition, the turbine engines operate with reduced emission
levels that meet the current and proposed Federal standards.

Technology development contracts are in place with the Allison
Gas Turbine Division of GM and with the Garrett Auxiliary Power
Division of the Allied-Signal Aerospace Company.

----------------------------------------------------
Shed-Ice Impact Energy Measurement System Developed
The NASA Lewis aircraft icing group has developed a shed-ice
impact energy measurement system to characterize the impact force
or energy associated with ice particles shed from a rotating
system, such as a propeller or a helicopter main rotor. This
system was developed in response to a stated industry need for a
data base of impact forces and energies associated with shed-ice
particles to use in predicting potential airframe damage from
shed-ice particles. The system was successfully used in a model
rotor icing test in the NASA Lewis Icing Research Tunnel where
over 300 shed-ice impacts were recorded. The proof-of-concept of
the system was developed through a grant with the University of
Toledo.

------------------------------------------------------
Novel Face Gears Proved Feasible for Advanced Rotorcraft
Transmissions
The Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission Program is an Army-funded,
joint NASA/Army program to develop and demonstrate lightweight,
quiet, and durable drivetrains for next generation rotorcraft.
One contract team participant (McDonnell Douglas Helicopter
Company / Lucas Western Incorporated) developed a novel design
with a projected weight saving of 40% over a conventional design.
The new design consisted of face gears in a split-torque
arrangement never before used in rotorcraft transmissions.
Prototype face gears were tested in the NASA Lewis Gear and
Transmission Laboratory to demonstrate their feasibility in a
high-speed, high-load application.

---------------------------------------------------------
Mixer-Ejector Nozzle Tested for Aerodynamic Performance and Noise
Suppression.
The High Speed Civil Transport is a proposed supersonic transport
capable of carrying 300 passengers on transoceanic routes. Such
an aircraft must meet Federal noise regulations to be acceptable
to communities surrounding airports. Although the only operating
supersonic transport, the Concord, has been granted an exemption
from FAA noise standards, such waivers probably will not be given
to future supersonic transports. However, the high thrust needed
to boost these aircraft to supersonic speeds implies high jet
velocities and thus high noise levels. As part of the High Speed
Research Program, NASA and Pratt & Whitney are working together
to develop technology that will reduce the noise produced by
these engines while maintaining thrust levels.

------------------------------------------------------------
F-18 Inlet Flow Calculated at Combination of High Angle of Attack
and Moderate Side Slip.
NASA Lewis is currently engaged in a research effort as a team
member of the High Alpha Technology Program within NASA. This
program utilizes a specially equipped F-18, the high alpha
research vehicle, in an ambitious effort to improve the
maneuverability of high-performance military aircraft at low-
subsonic-speed, high-angle-of-attack conditions. The overall
objective of the Lewis effort is to develop inlet technology that
will ensure efficient airflow delivery to the engine during these
maneuvers. The numerical results will be used to support wind
tunnel tests at NASA Lewis and flight tests at NASA Dryden.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Laser Light Scattering Provides a Clear Vision of the Future.
A compact fiber optic probe developed for on-orbit science
experiments has been used to detect the onset of cataracts, a
capability that could eliminate physicians' guesswork and result
in new drugs to dissolve cataracts before surgery is necessary.
This probe is a spinoff of an advanced technology development
program in laser light scattering at NASA Lewis that has reduced
a small roomfull of electronics, detectors, lasers, and
associated optics to the size of a briefcase. This progress will
permit experiments in microgravity that can quantitatively answer
basic science questions about nucleation, critical phenomena,
aggregation, diffusion, etc., in an environment unfettered by
convection and sedimentation effects. Meanwhile, ground-based
spinoffs of this work will be impacting our lives in the near
future.

----------------------------------------------------------
Structural Health-Monitoring System Developed for Composite
Aerospace Structures.
To reduce operating expenses, airlines are now using the existing
fleets of commercial aircraft well beyond their originally
anticipated service lives. The repair and maintenance of these
"aging aircraft" has become a critical safety issue, both to the
airlines and the FAA. A measurement system is therefore required
to continuously monitor the damage and structural degradation of
aging airframes that result from the repeated takeoff/landing and
pressurization/depressurization cycles that aircraft routinely
experience.

An innovative effort has been conducted to develop such a
monitoring system. The approach is to monitor the vibration of an
in-service structural component and then use a computer-based
pattern recognition algorithm to estimate, from these
measurements, the extent of damage in the structure. Structural
Integrity Associates, Inc., of San Jose, California, recently
demonstrated the feasibility of this approach as part of a Small
Business Innovation Research contract with NASA Lewis. The
results showed that a pattern recognition algorithm could be
"trained," by using laboratory test data, to recognize certain
characteristic changes in structural frequency response and to
infer from those changes the amount of ply delamination, matrix
cracking, or both in a composite structural component.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Foil Bearing Computer Code Developed.
Foil bearings are considered to be a potential alternative to
rolling-element bearings for turbopump applications because of
their inherent operating characteristics including virtually
infinite life, tolerance of debris and misalignment, reduced
thermal distortion, and the potential for enhanced dynamic
performance. Therefore, NASA Lewis is sponsoring a grant effort
to develop predictive analysis tools for the design and
performance evaluation of foil bearings.

Funded by the grant, Penn State University developed Foil
LUBrication, a finite-element-based code capable of predicting
the steady-state performance of foil bearings. There are plans to
enhance the code's capabilities through a follow-on effort. A
three-year program to completely develop the bearing code was
jointly defined by Penn State and Akron University. Akron will
develop a thermal model and a Navier-Stokes-based fluid model,
while Penn State will develop an analytical perturbation
technique for predicting the dynamic performance of foil
bearings.

------------------------------------------------------------
Titanium Precursors Chemically Vapor Deposited
Titanium and its alloys are critical for numerous aerospace
applications because of their high specific strength at elevated
temperatures, hardness, and resistance to wear and corrosion. Of
all metal and metal alloy deposition processes, chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) is perhaps the most suitable for forming the
reliable and reproducible multilevel structures required.

The current program focuses on Low Temperature CVD of titanium
and all its alloys by using a series of novel precursors through
thermal and plasma-assisted CVD. The precursors are being
synthesized at NASA Lewis with assistance from Cleveland State
University. The State University of New York at Albany is
depositing and characterizing the films. Further characterization
using surface and analytical instrumentation and electrical and
mechanical testing of CVD-deposited films is being conducted at
IBM and Motorola. Initial results show that high-quality
conducting titanium films with low carbon and oxygen content can
be deposited from titanium sandwich compounds onto 5-in diameter
silicon wafers. The deposition process involves plasma-assisted
CVD below 400C. Current work involves the development of
alternative precursors for low temperature CVD by using only a
thermal process.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Robust, Lightweight Stirling Engine Heater Head Fabricated
A technological milestone has been achieved during 1992 by the
successful fabrication of the Starfish heater for the 12.5 kWe
component test power converter (CTPC). The objective of the work
was to develop a lightweight, strong, high-performance heat
exchanger that would be more reliable than conventional heat
exchangers. The resulting design was a sodium-vapor-to-helium-gas
heat exchanger, called Starfish, that is machined from a solid
block of Inconel 718 superalloy material by electrochemical
methods, thereby eliminating all braze joints. The name Starfish
reflects the radial configuration of the heat exchanger fins.
This work is part of an overall effort to develop all the
technology necessary to design, fabricate, and test a high-
efficiency, low-specific-mass, 12 kWe Stirling space power
converter capable (SSPC) of long-life (60,000 hr) operation. The
CTPC and SSPC will operate with the Starfish heater at 1050K and
the converter cold end at 525K. The work is being performed under
NASA contract by Mechanical Technology Inc. of Latham, New York.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Lightweight Nickel/Hydrogen Cells Developed
As part of the nickel/hydrogen (NiH2) cell technology program at
NASA Lewis an advanced NiH2 cell design was developed. A goal was
to improve the specific energy of the state-of-the-art NiH2 cell
from 50 to 100 W-hr/kg. One of the components necessary to
accomplish this goal is a lighter weight nickel electrode. The
use of light-weight nickel plaque in place of heavy sintered
nickel plaque will lessen the weight of the nickel electrode.
These plaques (fiber and felt) are fabricated into nickel
electrodes by electrochemically impregnating them with the nickel
hydroxide active material. After preliminary experiments the
Fibrex fiber plaque from National Standard, Niles, Michigan, was
selected as one of the most promising support candidates for the
active material.

The lightweight NiH2 cell program is a combined effort. A
contract with Hughes Aircraft Company to improve the capacity and
initial performance of the Fibrex nickel electrode is currently
under way. A grant with the Space Power Institute (Auburn
University) to develop high-performance electrochemical systems
utilizing composite electrode structures is in progress. These
electrodes will be tested in a NiH2 cell at Hughes and NASA
Lewis.
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you've read through all these examples, you'll hopefully
conclude that NASA isn't out in left developing technologies
nobody gives a hoot about (let alone hiring hit men to get
rid of technology developers we don't like).

(P.S. If anybody wants more info about these examples, send
me an e-mail).

================
dbm...@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov
A graduate of the Alan Sherzer school of Cost Analysis
just kidding, Alan :)

Chris Jones

unread,
Jun 30, 1993, 8:14:50 AM6/30/93
to
In article <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu>, jim@pnet01 (Jim Bowery) writes:
>There have been some questions about who I am and what my positions
>are.

In the past, you've answered enough of my questions for me to know I don't want
to hitch my wagon to your vision.

>As chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I have, over the
>last 5 or so years, been the principle activist promoting the Launch
>Services Purchase Act of 1990 and the launch voucher provision of the
>1992 NASA authorization.
>
>To preempt some noise:
>

[summary of two year old grievance with Sherzer elided.]

> I encourage those with access to the sci.space archives to
>retrieve them and see exactly what Allen Sherzer said and the manner
>in which he said it.

As long as we're dredging the sci.space archives, I offer the following tidbit
from 1992:

In article <HHmVkB...@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink (Jim Bowery) writes:
[...]
>Currently, the Coalition for Science and Commerce is putting together
>legislation making Economic Treason a crime punishable by death titled
>"The Economic Treason Act".
>
>"Economic Treason" would consist, simply, of using one's position of
>public trust within government to favor one private concern over another.
>
>We are considering making the death-penalty mandatory in cases of
>such Treason within the DoD involving directed benefits greater than
>$10 million.

Back in the present, I wonder if the ETA is what Jim (can I call you Jim?)
means when he says:

>I've been involved in several other, as yet unsuccessful, legislative
>efforts to reform NASA, DoE (primarily fusion), NSF and DARPA.

I, for one, hope this legislative effort remains unsuccessful. I also decline
your invitation to
[...]


>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choose truth or peace, here and now.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see them as symbiotic; I infer you see them as antagonistic.
--
Chris Jones c...@ksr.com

Pat

unread,
Jun 30, 1993, 12:24:23 PM6/30/93
to
It would be nice if more of these projects went out to small
businesses. I know that's why there is a SBIR program,
but relatively, where are the bucks?

pat
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

Pat

unread,
Jun 30, 1993, 12:28:03 PM6/30/93
to
In article <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu> j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Allen Sherzer has yet to apologize to me for his repeated slanders
>in this forum 2 years ago, declaring that my contributions to the


Anyone who can't take being slandered by Alan, fred or me, should
not post in this newsgroup :-)

Steinn Sigurdsson

unread,
Jun 30, 1993, 12:57:13 PM6/30/93
to
In article <28...@ksr.com> c...@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes:

In article <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu>, jim@pnet01 (Jim Bowery) writes:

>legislation making Economic Treason a crime punishable by death titled
>"The Economic Treason Act".

>"Economic Treason" would consist, simply, of using one's position of
>public trust within government to favor one private concern over another.
>We are considering making the death-penalty mandatory in cases of
>such Treason within the DoD involving directed benefits greater than
>$10 million.

US Constitution: Article III, Section 3. "Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying was against them, or in adhering
to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Supreme Court might have an amusing afternoon with the
first case though...

* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
* ste...@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
* Some people think they're really clever *
* Smash your head against the wall Specials, 1979 *

Jim Bowery

unread,
Jul 2, 1993, 3:16:52 AM7/2/93
to
Pat <p...@access.digex.net> writes:
>In article <C9DGAE...@cs.cmu.edu> j...@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Allen Sherzer has yet to apologize to me for his repeated slanders
>>in this forum 2 years ago, declaring that my contributions to the
>
>Anyone who can't take being slandered by Alan, fred or me, should
>not post in this newsgroup :-)

Anyone who can't discriminate between a criticizm of a slanderer's
character and a whining complaint from someone "who can't take being
slandered" has the all the depth of character that it takes to
fit right into the Internet community. Me -- I'd rather be slandered
by the likes of Pat, Allen Sherzer and Fred McCall than fit in with them.

Pat

unread,
Jul 2, 1993, 1:37:55 PM7/2/93
to

If they can't take a joke, you know what they say?

Ward Paul

unread,
Jul 2, 1993, 4:07:45 AM7/2/93
to
In article <STEINLY.93...@topaz.ucsc.edu> ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>US Constitution: Article III, Section 3. "Treason against the United

>States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering


>to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is "war" defined in the US constitution? One certainly might suggest that the
theft of large sums of money from the national treasury constituted an act of war.
(Or to put it another way, can only countries declare war on other countries?)
--
Paul

Pat

unread,
Jul 4, 1993, 12:14:54 PM7/4/93
to
In article <1993Jul2.0...@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> wa...@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
>Is "war" defined in the US constitution? One certainly might suggest that the

No. Only the method by which the country passes a declaration
of war.


>theft of large sums of money from the national treasury constituted an act of war.

Does that mean we should send tanks to texas to collect on those
failed S&Ls? if that wasn't a theft of money from the national
treasury, i don't know what was.


>(Or to put it another way, can only countries declare war on other countries?)

no, but if you aren't a country, does anyone care?

I seem to recall some canadian environmentalists declared war on the US.

something about USAF training missions in canada. even threatened to
shoot at them with his .22 rifle.

lots of little countries threaten stuff, no-one listens to them either.
I think the libyans threatened war a couple of times over the gulf
of sidra. no-one cared.

pat

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages