A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing (moderated)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hans Knauss flunks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 24th 04, 01:11 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sven Golly wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote in news:g9OdnSo-eZKrt1XcRVn-
:


No, Sven. Wrong. _You_ may feel that safety _should_ be considered,
but safety is _not_ the justification that is provided for the invasion
of privacy that is involved in athlete drug tests. If you, or anyone,
wants to advance that justification as a rationale for extending drug
tests on athletes, you may feel free to do so. But you have to make
your case and convince WADA, the FIS, or someone else in authority to
agree with you.



You don't read well do you? Just rant on a hot button. I said safety
should be considered -- not that it necessarily is.


No, you didn't. You said, "Uh, there's also a safety consideration."
Not that it should be, but that there _is_ a safety consideration. I
understand that it's not what you meant, but it is what you said, so
you've no call to attack my reading comprehension.

Safety AND
performance enhancement are both used as justifications for athlete drug
testing.


Cite, please? Specifically, a cite of spectator safety, or athlete
safety due to NON-performance during an event -- not to athlete safety
as result of using a _harmful_ performance-enhancing substance -- being
used as a justification for athlete drug testing?

Obviously, most orgs are more concerned with the performance
side of the coin.


If that were all, they'd ban water. They're concerned about substances
and practices that enhance performance while doing harm to the user.

As for getting hired for a job, if there's a reasonable chance that your
performance will be affected by what you smoke, shoot, snort, inhale or
swallow, then yes, I think you should be tested. I don't want alcoholics
flying the 757 I'm flying in either.

Where you may have a point is where safety is NOT affected. Clerical work
for example. BUT, in the US, someone will argue (successfully I'd add)
that testing one class of worker but not another is a form of
discrimination. Which is why most companies (legally) have to have
policies to test their entire workforce.


And yet they can't explain to you why they are testing, what they are
testing for, why they're testing for that collection of stuff (typically
it's "illegal" drugs, not prescription or alcohol...make sense to you?),
or what they will do with the test results. The whole rationale behind
allowing workplace drug testing in the first place was a demonstrable
safety issue, as in your example of the 757. That was the
justification. The justification for clerical staff? Completely absent.

Now, go smoke a bowl for me will ya?


Go do it yourself it that's what you're into.

--
Mary Malmros

Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

Ads
  #32  
Old December 24th 04, 09:53 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sven Golly wrote:
For example, I personally think we should not
be screening 72-year old whitebread ladies for bombs at airports but that
males between 16 and 45 who look Middle Eastern and speak with funny
accents otta be strip-searched at the drop of an "Allah akbar". But the
left in the US gets all worked up over profiling so we don't. We do it
randomly. And stupidly. But WTFDIK?


Exactly. WTFDYK.

Terrorists have a large selection of potential agents - they can easily
select non-obvious agent; as they do. You perhaps have heard of the
several 16 yr old pale appearing young female suicide bombers?

Re airport searches - the Sept 11 planes were hijacks using small
blades; the hijackers knew they couldn't, and therefore didn't attempt
to, smuggle guns aboard. The hijackings worked because passengers had
for years been warned by authorities that their best chance of survival
was passivity. These days if somebody jumps up with a pocket knife do
you think the passengers are going to passively let them pilot the plane
into a building? Of course not. Yet the primary anti-terror response by
authorities is to search, as you said, little old ladies at the airport.

We always prepare to fight the last battle, and never the next battle.
Therefore we now have anti-terror protection against a small group using
small blades to hijack and airliner full of passive passengers and fly
it into a building. None of which is likely ever to be repeated. We have
however no protection against other possibly terrorist activities except
the joke of color coding.

We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire
world by attacking a non-participant bystander whom the president didn't
like before hand and whom was fond of making billigerant noises, without
the means to actually be billigerant; which the president well knew and
deliberately suppressed from both congress and the people. Our country
is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

  #33  
Old December 24th 04, 10:18 PM
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lal_truckee wrote:
Sven Golly wrote:

For example, I personally think we should not be screening 72-year old
whitebread ladies for bombs at airports but that males between 16 and
45 who look Middle Eastern and speak with funny accents otta be
strip-searched at the drop of an "Allah akbar". But the left in the US
gets all worked up over profiling so we don't. We do it randomly. And
stupidly. But WTFDIK?



Exactly. WTFDYK.

Terrorists have a large selection of potential agents - they can easily
select non-obvious agent; as they do. You perhaps have heard of the
several 16 yr old pale appearing young female suicide bombers?

Re airport searches - the Sept 11 planes were hijacks using small
blades; the hijackers knew they couldn't, and therefore didn't attempt
to, smuggle guns aboard. The hijackings worked because passengers had
for years been warned by authorities that their best chance of survival
was passivity. These days if somebody jumps up with a pocket knife do
you think the passengers are going to passively let them pilot the plane
into a building? Of course not. Yet the primary anti-terror response by
authorities is to search, as you said, little old ladies at the airport.

We always prepare to fight the last battle, and never the next battle.
Therefore we now have anti-terror protection against a small group using
small blades to hijack and airliner full of passive passengers and fly
it into a building. None of which is likely ever to be repeated. We have
however no protection against other possibly terrorist activities except
the joke of color coding.

We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire
world by attacking a non-participant bystander whom the president didn't
like before hand and whom was fond of making billigerant noises, without
the means to actually be billigerant; which the president well knew and
deliberately suppressed from both congress and the people. Our country
is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

Amen

  #34  
Old December 25th 04, 03:53 PM
pigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...

We have squandered the good will and anti-terroist aid of the entire world
by attacking a non-participant bystander


A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. In that world the lack of ability
to engage us conventionally only increases the likelihood that they will
resort to despicable underhanded tactics like the attacks on the Russian
school awhile back (and Bali and WTC and........).

Afghanistan and Iraq are the two that received the most immediate response
to their tactics. Perhaps there will be more. Perhaps the opportunity that
seems to be taking hold somewhat in Afghanistan and is about to begin with
the elections in Iraq will reduce the need to go on to the next one.

I'm glad that the terrorists are occupied there fighting our military than
here blowing up old folks homes.

It would be nice to have more than the 30-40 countries "on our side". But
it's even nicer to be able to do what's right for us without relying on
them.

BTW: I hear that France has announced an increased their terror alert level
from "run" to "hide". It seems to me that they have already gone past the
3rd level (surrender) to their highest level (collaborate), as is apparent
from their involvement in the money for france (aka oil for food) program.

  #35  
Old December 25th 04, 03:54 PM
John Red-Horse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, you might be wondering just what the heck I'm doing scanning usenet
on Christmas eve, well, I'm at work, so of course I was screwing around
doing the procrastination thing when I ran across...

In article , wrote:

Our country
is run by elected fools who can't think their way out of a paper bag.


....this, and I couldn't help the following knee jerk reaction to that
comment: Hey, lal, I'm not positive which is the most foolish collection,
the elected ones or the ones who elected them. We had our chances.

all the best,
john

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.