Re: Substantive comments

From: rk (stellare_at_NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com)
Date: 06/18/04 

Date: 18 Jun 2004 00:23:45 GMT

I did not see a reply to the post below and I would like to see this answered
also.

Since only conclusions are shown, the only basis for acceptance is the person
performing the work in question. That is, elementary questions can not be
answered, you are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of the issues at hand,
and you have not supplied technical data that would permit independent
calculations to verify your conclusions. 

-- 
rk
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> In article <4821518f.0406151922.352d8dd3@posting.google.com>,
>  hpywife927@yahoo.com (LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
> 
>> 
>> By the way, WHY IS IT you are SO HOT to find out who is working with
>> me?  Your motivation in asking that one question repeatedly makes you
>> completely suspect.
>> LaDonna
> 
> Because:
> 
> 1) You promised to provide the names and credentials and have yet to do 
> so;
> 
> 2) Standard investigative practice is to reveal the names of experts so 
> controversial conclusions may be judged, in part, by the persons who 
> have held themselves out as experts in the field and added their weight 
> of authority to those conclusions;
> 
> 3) Rules of litigation (provided you and "scott" ever indeed do the 
> right thing and bring your charges of murder or a claim for wrongful 
> death before the appropriate authorities) require it: see, e.g., Federal 
> Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Federal Rules of Evidence pertaining 
> to expert testimony.
-- 
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Dealing properly with very rare events is one of the attributes that 
distinguishes a design that is fit for safety-critical systems from one that 
is not."  -- John Rushby in "A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety-
Critical Embedded Systems," March 2003