Woman suing NASA---warning. WILL explode brain.

DJMayhem · Post by **DJMayhem** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:57 pm

$10 bucks that case will be thrown out of court.

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:05 pm

*quiet sound of brain frying*

...

Gnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Heh. Really, though, there's no way I'd take that bet up, Mayhem. Any judge with half a brain cell would.

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:07 pm

Yes, but where do we find a judge with half a brain cell?

Or a JURY for that matter.

DJMayhem · Post by **DJMayhem** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:11 pm

Plus, the lady is in Russia, suing a US company. Aren't there legal obstructions here?

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:17 pm

Ooo, that ventures into the dark waters of international law, where may fear to tread. No idea how it'd work. Still, I don't think it'll get very far.

Christwriter · Post by **Christwriter** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:25 pm

I found this in another forum. They posted the following arguement, which I thought was pretty dang brilliant.

1) The lawsuit is out of jurisdiction for one--NASA is a US government agency not answerable to Russia or any other non-US authority.

2) The space treaty of 1967 exempts all non-terrestrial objects as belonging to all of man-kind and not subject to territorial claims. Therefore, in order for Russia to have jurisdiction over the comet, Russia would have to have a territorial claim to the comet--which is void since Russia ratified the 1967 treaty along with the US and several other nations. NASA was exercising its legitimate functions of the probe as laid out in the treaty of 1967.

3) The papers reported her words as "upsetting the natural order of the universe"--But NASA built, launched, and guided the probe using nothing but "natural laws". Human beings are as much a part of "nature" as any other living thing on the planet or solar system. Therefore, the "natural order of the universe" could not be upset, since NASA did not use "supernatural forces" to get the probe to the comet.

4) In order to prove "damages" to her livelyhood, she would have to prove that ALL of her "predictions" of her horoscopes made prior to the impact were accurate--and not altered after-the-fact of the dates of her charts, which would constitute fraud on her part. Since it was the "Destiny" of the comet to be hit by the NASA probe, then if she could not predict it, then not all of her horoscopes were accurate to begin with and therefore she cannot prove that NASA is responsible for her errors. If her charts did predict the impact, then NASA was simply fulfilling her charts and no "damages" had indeed taken place.

CW

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:33 pm

BrownEyedCat wrote:I say we launch major, man-made sattilites into the sky to see if they fuck up peoples' horoscopes.

We should hold back on destroying astral bodies until we know which ones will benefit our horoscopes if destroyed.

What if a particular astral body is mostly harmless?

-Rain- · Post by **-Rain-** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:35 pm

3) The papers reported her words as "upsetting the natural order of the universe"--But NASA built, launched, and guided the probe using nothing but "natural laws". Human beings are as much a part of "nature" as any other living thing on the planet or solar system. Therefore, the "natural order of the universe" could not be upset, since NASA did not use "supernatural forces" to get the probe to the comet.

4) In order to prove "damages" to her livelyhood, she would have to prove that ALL of her "predictions" of her horoscopes made prior to the impact were accurate--and not altered after-the-fact of the dates of her charts, which would constitute fraud on her part. Since it was the "Destiny" of the comet to be hit by the NASA probe, then if she could not predict it, then not all of her horoscopes were accurate to begin with and therefore she cannot prove that NASA is responsible for her errors. If her charts did predict the impact, then NASA was simply fulfilling her charts and no "damages" had indeed taken place.

I was thinking that...

Besides, there are a lot of changes up there every moment : stars exploding, comets crashing, etc... so she would have to readjust her prediction system every second? Crazy. Easy money, she tought, if NASA bought her complaints.

BrownEyedCat · Post by **BrownEyedCat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:43 pm

Risky wrote:What if a particular astral body is mostly harmless?

What, you mean if destroying it has no ill effects? Well, then you can blow it up if you want, but I'd rather blow up objects that will result in terrible luck for my enemies.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:46 pm

BrownEyedCat wrote:
Risky wrote:What if a particular astral body is mostly harmless?
What, you mean if destroying it has no ill effects? Well, then you can blow it up if you want, but I'd rather blow up objects that will result in terrible luck for my enemies.

*destroys all possible earths in all possible multiverses so that he has a better chance of winning poker on pluto*</h2g2>

ManyWorlds · Post by **ManyWorlds** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:17 pm

Risky wrote:What if a particular astral body is mostly harmless?

Then it gets demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass. (I know Risky already made the Hitchhiker's connection, but I wouldn't be me if I didn't say this.)

And they don't play poker on Pluto. They play Black Jack. Dur.

PieceOfSkunk · Post by **PieceOfSkunk** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:19 pm

I think if anyone should sue, it should be the people who's fortunes got changed for the worse.

"The presence of this comet means you're going to inherit a large sum of money! Oh, wait... now it's gone. No money for you. Instead, you will die in a freak elevator accident."

Toxic · Post by **Toxic** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:38 pm

Put your best foot forward in public. Plan the week ahead carefully and make notes of deadlines and due dates. The morning is the best time to approach others for important favors.

Now I know to totally ignore this advice.

Protectmyballs · Post by **Protectmyballs** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:21 pm

tears wrote:Uh... that really would mess things up... what with the moons gravitry being responsible for tides and stuff like that...

Not really. The moon makes the high and low tides, but not the tides themselves. Thats from wind, rotation, etc. The moon's gravitational pull on Earth wouldn't be missed too badly, although it does have the super neat effect of sublty thickening and thinning the Earth during its orbit.
Also, it's really NOT made of green cheese. Think about it.

Cat42 · Post by **Cat42** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:34 pm

The problem here is that no one is recognizing what the comets rights are. Comets are one of God's creatures, to be respected, feared, and exploited by shitty fortune tellers. While the woman has no proper claim, what about the comet's feelings? The comets physical matter? Deosn't anyone think the comet needs love too?

Ti-Phil · Post by **Ti-Phil** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:44 pm

That....is....so.....stupid.. *brain and part of his liver explode*

Dr Legostar · Post by **Dr Legostar** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:07 pm

Every time I think I've seen the stupidest thing ever, people keep further impressing me...

oh and brain splodey etc etc...

DJMayhem · Post by **DJMayhem** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:56 pm

christwriter wrote:I found this in another forum. They posted the following arguement, which I thought was pretty dang brilliant.

1) The lawsuit is out of jurisdiction for one--NASA is a US government agency not answerable to Russia or any other non-US authority.

2) The space treaty of 1967 exempts all non-terrestrial objects as belonging to all of man-kind and not subject to territorial claims. Therefore, in order for Russia to have jurisdiction over the comet, Russia would have to have a territorial claim to the comet--which is void since Russia ratified the 1967 treaty along with the US and several other nations. NASA was exercising its legitimate functions of the probe as laid out in the treaty of 1967.

3) The papers reported her words as "upsetting the natural order of the universe"--But NASA built, launched, and guided the probe using nothing but "natural laws". Human beings are as much a part of "nature" as any other living thing on the planet or solar system. Therefore, the "natural order of the universe" could not be upset, since NASA did not use "supernatural forces" to get the probe to the comet.

4) In order to prove "damages" to her livelyhood, she would have to prove that ALL of her "predictions" of her horoscopes made prior to the impact were accurate--and not altered after-the-fact of the dates of her charts, which would constitute fraud on her part. Since it was the "Destiny" of the comet to be hit by the NASA probe, then if she could not predict it, then not all of her horoscopes were accurate to begin with and therefore she cannot prove that NASA is responsible for her errors. If her charts did predict the impact, then NASA was simply fulfilling her charts and no "damages" had indeed taken place.
CW

Yes, all valuable arguments, but the most basic arguement still stands- its stupid.

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:24 pm

*scoops brain out*

My head is saved.

Nyke · Post by **Nyke** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:35 pm

I've kept on saying this over and over.

Rule #1: People are stupid.
Rule #2: Once you realize Rule #1, then you'll no longer be suprised by what people do.
Rule #3: Read Rule #1 again until it sticks.