From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.151615.18125@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Do you care to re-evaluate your "summary"?
}
}No. Do you care to answer any of the clarifying questions I had to
}your position? Cause you didn't answer them in this last post.

I gave what I was specifically talking about from the beginning.  If you
wish to take off on a tangent, feel free.  Don't pretend that it is what
I was, though.  Why did you erase it?

}#Nope.  I wanted to bring up the point that Clinton has considerations
}#OTHER than qualifications for the cabinet positions in selecting
}#his appointees. 
}
}"There you go again!"

Precisely.  As I originally said.

}You are assuming that the head of the DoE needs to be be qualified in
}building nukes, since when someone who has qualifications other than
}that is appointed, you talk about them having qualifications OTHER
}than for the post they are nominated for.

Nope.  Reread.  I did not say "qualified in quilding nukes", I said
"expereince" in the #1 budget line item for the appointed cabinet.

}FOR THE SECOND TIME: Your posts seem (to me at least) to be implying
}that Clintons nominee is not qualified for the position of DoE. Is
}that the postition you are trying to portray? Don't bother reposting
}anything, please answer yes or no.

I am portraying EXACTLY what I said.  The individual does not have experience
in the main line of work on the position appointed.

}#That isn't what _I_ was discussing.
}
}Then please SIMPLY list the point that you think that you are
}discussing. 

I gave it in the first post, and I reposted it twice in the posting
I just made.  Why did you delete me quoting me, then ask for what I 
quoted?

}#   I agree with him.  I think that putting the "doomsday weapons" totally
}#   under the control of one person who does not necessarily have national
}#   interests is an error.  
}
}But the these weapons AREN'T totally under the control of one person.
}To the best of my knowledge (not having direct experience with these)
}several different officials/officers need to agree for these weapons
}to be used. A situation I agree with.

Wanna bet? (hint: I do)  On the unclass side, how do you think that
greek ship got zapped by an antiaircraft missle?

}#BTW:  In your "nukes are the same as other weapons systems" - which others
}#are totally under the control of thge DoD that can devistate entire
}#continents?
}
}Chemical weapons and biologicals.

And are these 100% under the control (vertical and horizontal monopoly)
of the DoD? 

Have you noticed that there are political (nonmilitary) treaties being
made on all of these?  Seems to be a non-military control.  How about
production facilities?  Heck, not even the military budget is under
military control completely.

}#Are you having comprehension problems?  I said:
}#>Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
}#>on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
}#>posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
}#>NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
}#
}#I did not say anything about what anything should do in the future.  If you
}#require additional explaination, let me know.
}
}You are implying that the Clinton appointee is not qualified to lead
}the DoE since the DoE IN THE PAST mainly made nukes, ignoring that the
}DoE IN THE FUTURE will have other tasks. 

I did not say "qualified", I said "experience".  Look at what you quoted.
And, weither you like it or not, the facilities for the production of nuclear
weapons is, and has been, the #1 item in the DoE budget.  You may, of
course, wish and dream whatever you wish, as long as you don't expect
these daydreams to be accepted as observable truths.  

Oh heck:  Are you saying that DoE shouldn't be responsible for cleaning
up its own mess, which is what it has been budgetting for years, and NOT
(as you acknowledge) production?

}Yes, I know quite well that you did not say anything about future
}events. I'm pointing out that I consider that an error.

Then don't "correct" me for what YOU said. And the future is clearly what
YOU are addressing in your "IN THE FUTURE".  Your problem, not mine.