OT: ITT fine

On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I thought I would wave the red flag in a subdued way in front of the
> bull...
>
> Hey, Bill, wadda you think of the $ 100 Million dollar fine given ITT
> today for selling night vision technology to the Chinese? It seems a
> bit high. I mean, who wants to fight at night, anyway. Bad enough to
> get up at 4 am and draw weapons at the armory...
>

dumbass,

what's the fine for selling burritos and nikes to the chinese ?

On 27 Mar 2007 11:25:26 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I thought I would wave the red flag in a subdued way in front of the
>> bull...
>>
>> Hey, Bill, wadda you think of the $ 100 Million dollar fine given ITT
>> today for selling night vision technology to the Chinese? It seems a
>> bit high. I mean, who wants to fight at night, anyway. Bad enough to
>> get up at 4 am and draw weapons at the armory...
>>
>
>dumbass,
>
>what's the fine for selling burritos and nikes to the chinese ?

I thought nikes were outmoded and we had already sold all of them to
Iraq when we were still friends. Or someone. The line of custody has
been adulterated.

If we can sell KFC to the Chinese, we can sell burritos. After all,
burritos are one of the many made up foods that United Statians
invented that every one thinks came from somewhere else. We sell them
and blame them on the Mexicans. Same same Chimichangas. We get the
money and watch the anti-Mexican riots. Then we sell them Beano.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Mar 27, 2:08 pm, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I thought I would wave the red flag in a subdued way in front of the
> bull...
>
> Hey, Bill, wadda you think of the $ 100 Million dollar fine given ITT
> today for selling night vision technology to the Chinese? It seems a
> bit high. I mean, who wants to fight at night, anyway. Bad enough to
> get up at 4 am and draw weapons at the armory...
>
> I think I'm getting this 'subtlety' thing down now.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Hi Curtis
Just read the piece on it. I was actually at the VA hospital in New
Haven all day with my Uncle. Had some fun conversations about the
"sudden" scandal with the VA facilities.
I'm OK with the $100 million fine, but they needed to find out who
signed what, and authorized what, and hold them personally, criminally
responsible with jail time and fines too. The corporation isn't even
expecting the fine to impact their earnings statement. Probably plan
to add15% more to every piece of equippment they sell to the
government and make the money back anyway. That'd still be cheaper and
easier for the government than getting a new supplier, setting up new
training, stockpiling spare parts, and having multiple versions of the
equipment in the supply line.
It's like fining Microsoft, shoveling the ocean with a teaspoon.
Wanna bet how much of that they ever collect? Exxon still hasn't paid
most of the fines from the Valdez mess, and I think they got a court
to reduce them massively a few years ago too, but I'm pulling that out
of faulty wetware.

Bill C

On 27 Mar 2007 13:56:34 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Wanna bet how much of that they ever collect?

Well, the agreement was if they came up with a new technology that
made the sold tech obsolete, part of the fine is abated. If the
article is correct though, ITT pretty much has to give it to the Feds.

They should say, "Hell, no, we can sell it for more than that to the
Chinese and pay the fine."

Keep posting - we'll let you know if you are lucid, relatively
speaking, or not.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Mar 27, 1:56 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Exxon still hasn't paid
> most of the fines from the Valdez mess,...


OH!!! This can't be true. The guvmint is here to protect us -- to
create order out of the black chaos. There is no way that anyone
(Exxon) could get away with such a thing with our great and grand
protector. It is almost as if you're saying we don't get a good bang
for our buck. Preposterous!!! Guvmint and taxation are the road to a
happy order in what would otherwise be chaos -- the un-law of the
jungle! Are you high or something? What would we do without guvmint
to protect us from the likes of Exxon?

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wanna bet how much of that they ever collect? Exxon still hasn't paid
> most of the fines from the Valdez mess, and I think they got a court
> to reduce them massively a few years ago too, but I'm pulling that out
> of faulty wetware.

Funny thing about legal systems - it ain't true until the final gavel falls.
Too bad you're unwilling to wait.

Next on the Bill Channel - Bill claims everyone who was named in Operacion
Puerto should be banned from cycling for life.

On Mar 27, 6:28 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 1:56 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Exxon still hasn't paid
> > most of the fines from the Valdez mess,...
>
> OH!!! This can't be true. The guvmint is here to protect us -- to
> create order out of the black chaos. There is no way that anyone
> (Exxon) could get away with such a thing with our great and grand
> protector. It is almost as if you're saying we don't get a good bang
> for our buck. Preposterous!!! Guvmint and taxation are the road to a
> happy order in what would otherwise be chaos -- the un-law of the
> jungle! Are you high or something? What would we do without guvmint
> to protect us from the likes of Exxon?

The onlt thing I disagree with is that WE, as individuals, could do
anything more than the GUVMINT, to restrain Exxon or any other
multinational.
They could hire a shitload more mercenaries than we could round up.
Bill C

In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 27 Mar 2007 13:56:34 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Wanna bet how much of that they ever collect?
>
> Well, the agreement was if they came up with a new technology that
> made the sold tech obsolete, part of the fine is abated. If the
> article is correct though, ITT pretty much has to give it to the Feds.
>
> They should say, "Hell, no, we can sell it for more than that to the
> Chinese and pay the fine."



> Keep posting - we'll let you know if you are lucid, relatively
> speaking, or not.
--
Michael Press

On Mar 28, 12:00 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Mar 2007 13:56:34 -0700, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Wanna bet how much of that they ever collect?
>
> > Well, the agreement was if they came up with a new technology that
> > made the sold tech obsolete, part of the fine is abated. If the
> > article is correct though, ITT pretty much has to give it to the Feds.
>
> > They should say, "Hell, no, we can sell it for more than that to the
> > Chinese and pay the fine."
>
>
>
> > Keep posting - we'll let you know if you are lucid, relatively
> > speaking, or not.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Yeah I see that now. That's in the AP article, right? The one I found
yesterday didn't have those details.
Hopefully it works out better than Exxon's double hull tanker
committment.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/oiltankers/216976_polar22.asp
Quoted:
By contrast, Exxon's fleet hasn't launched any new double-hulled ships
for the Alaska trade and, under the law, it might not be able to sail
its old ships into Prince William Sound and Puget Sound in about two
years.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/072000-105.htm
Bill C

in message <[email protected]>, Curtis L. Russell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I thought I would wave the red flag in a subdued way in front of the
> bull...
>
> Hey, Bill, wadda you think of the $ 100 Million dollar fine given ITT
> today for selling night vision technology to the Chinese?

Don't be silly, an individual time trial cannot sell anything to anyone.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:07:15 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't be silly, an individual time trial cannot sell anything to anyone.

I understand a ITT sold Laurent Fignon on aero bars and aero helmets.
That was a few years ago.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm going to try being rational for a moment here.

That will be something new for your latest incarnation. Look Bill, I liked
the old you that thought about what he was writing before he wrote it. Now
you seem to just go off half-cocked like the idiot brigade here.

> Show me where I
> have said anything other than the discipline process, Wada, and the
> UCIs witch hunt are anything but deeply flawed?

Bill - just in this string you printed: "Hopefully it works out better than
Exxon's double hull tanker
committment."

Tell me, what exactly do you know or think you know about double hulled
tankers and Exxon in general? You read some attack piece and treat it as
some sort of expert opinion without even thinking any more. That's certainly
not the way you used to post.

Hey, I understand that you're having health problems and I really hope you
get it worked out. But your reaction has been to take it out on the world
around you and you should be better than that.

The same with doping in cycling - just because some first class moron like
Pound proclaims the tests 100% accurate doesn't mean that they are even
close to that. The MAIN reason that there was no prosecutions in Operacion
Puerto was because they had no proof that the entries in the record book
could be connected to any specific rider and because NO LAWS WERE BROKEN!
All of that **** was designed only to gain political power for a few high
officials and the cycling media were more than willing to hand it to them on
a platter without a shred of evidence in most of the cases. All of the
political figures involved benefited from this and the only losers were the
riders that were falsely accused.

And it was really a joyful event to see the group of low class losers here
acting so high and mighty as if they were in some sort of position to
measure and judge the worth of others.

In article <[email protected]>, "Bill C"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 5:08 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > And it was really a joyful event to see the group of low class losers here
> > acting so high and mighty as if they were in some sort of position to
> > measure and judge the worth of others.
>
> Hey Tom you judge everyone continually. What makes you any different
> than anyone else here in regard to judging people?

What makes Tom any different when it comes to judging people is that
Tom knows beyond all doubt that he is right at all times. Therefore, when
he judges, it's correct and when others judge (particularly if they're
judging someone that Tom idolizes like Rumsfeld or Bush), they're just
fools shoooting their mouths off. Tom knows that he's always right. That's
the difference.

--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bill C wrote:
> What makes you any different
> than anyone else here in regard to judging people?

Heh!

Bob Schwartz

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hey Tom you judge everyone continually. What makes you any different
> than anyone else here in regard to judging people?

I judge you by what you post here. You don't like that?

You on the other hand seem to learn everything you think you know from hit
pieces.

On Mar 28, 5:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Hey Tom you judge everyone continually. What makes you any different
> > than anyone else here in regard to judging people?
>
> I judge you by what you post here. You don't like that?




Dumbass -


I 'judge' you by what you post in here and I think you're one of the
lamest usenet regulars I've ever had the misfortune to read.


best wishes,

K. Gringioni.

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree with you on this. It bears a strong resemblance to the Duke
> lacrosse case IMO where the prosecutor was overstating, falsifying,
> and being a diva for political gain. At least they are going to hang
> that *******.

He has been brought up by the State Bar Association.
Meanwhile three men still face charges of
sexual offense and kidnapping
--
Michael Press

On Mar 29, 1:42 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with you on this. It bears a strong resemblance to the Duke
> > lacrosse case IMO where the prosecutor was overstating, falsifying,
> > and being a diva for political gain. At least they are going to hang
> > that *******.
>
> He has been brought up by the State Bar Association.
> Meanwhile three men still face charges of
> sexual offense and kidnapping
> --
> Michael Press

Have you seen anything more on the rumors from about a week ago that
they were planning to drop all the rest of the charges against the
kids too?
Bill C

On Mar 27, 5:00 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:28 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:56 pm, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Exxon still hasn't paid
> > > most of the fines from the Valdez mess,...
>
> > OH!!! This can't be true. The guvmint is here to protect us -- to
> > create order out of the black chaos. There is no way that anyone
> > (Exxon) could get away with such a thing with our great and grand
> > protector. It is almost as if you're saying we don't get a good bang
> > for our buck. Preposterous!!! Guvmint and taxation are the road to a
> > happy order in what would otherwise be chaos -- the un-law of the
> > jungle! Are you high or something? What would we do without guvmint
> > to protect us from the likes of Exxon?
>
> The onlt thing I disagree with is that WE, as individuals, could do
> anything more than the GUVMINT, to restrain Exxon or any other
> multinational.
> They could hire a shitload more mercenaries than we could round up.


I know I feel a lot safer with Martha Stewart behind bars. She might
try to sell me a pastel colored towel at the local KMart otherwise.
Thank goodness for guvmint.

It is a dog and pony show designed for the consumption of suckers.