Re: Independence Day Thoughts
From: rk (stellare_at_NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com)
Date: 07/06/04
- Next message: Mike Flugennock: "Re: Andrian Nikolayev Dead?"
- Previous message: Ool: "Re: And this is what this has to do with space policy... (Re: errors in Moore's film)"
- In reply to: LaDonna Wyss: "Independence Day Thoughts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 06 Jul 2004 10:15:08 GMT
I'm sorry, but I find your "analysis" on "Independence Day Thoughts" incorrect
and not supported. Indeed, making such sweeping generalizations and
assumptions is irresponsible, particularly from one claiming the moral high
ground.
Now, you state, in criticism:
Don't ask question, don't raise eyebrows; go along with the flow and
you'll be accepted.
and that you are "ASHAMED" and you conclude with:
We may as well burn the First Amendment to the Constitution; in practice
it means absolutely nothing in today's society.
First, some of the responses to your posts are inappropriate (or far worse).
This has happenned in the past and a number of us invested time, effort, and
money to create a forum that would enable people to express views of any sort
without the inappropriate (or far worse responses) -- several of us have given
you this advice on how to deal with that and eliminate it. However, you chose
not to utilize that forum or other moderated groups in this community -- it is
your own right to post to whatever group you chose but your attempts at blame
below are in fact quite incorrect. You have been given the "liberty" to
express your points of view in a protected fashion, you just chose, for
whatever reason, not to take advantage of that. Please do note that the
intensity of the questions in such a moderated forum will not decrease but
rather increase and as the "signal to noise" increases the adequacy or lack of
adequacy of any responses becomes much more clear. But I suspect that you
already know all this quite well.
Now, it turns out that many of us are asking you questions and we are free to
do such a thing, particularly in a sci.* discussion group.
Your assertions and answers show that you lack basic knowledge in the
technical fields that you are discussing and that you very frequently avoid
giving references or source material so that your conclusions can be
independently checked. Along with the "liberty" to make such statements as
you chose, you have, particularly as a leader of an independent investigation
(virtually all of us post here as individuals, as I am doing now), you have
certain responsibilities which you are not fulfilling. The AIAA is a
professional organization that would fit into this role and this is what they
have to say on this matter about "obligations," in part:
2. A paper should contain sufficient detail and reference to public
sources of information such that the author's peers could repeat
the work.
3. An author should cite those publications that have been influential
in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide
the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for
understanding the present investigation. Information obtained
privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with
third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work
without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the
information originated. ...
-and-
3. A scientist or engineer should not proclaim a discovery to the
public unless the support for it is of strength sufficient to warrant
publication in the technical literature. An account of the work and
results that support a public pronouncement should be submitted as
quickly as possible for publication in a technical journal.
Along with freedom and liberty comes responsibility, particularly when making
very serious allegations against many individuals.
This is a very serious subject, you make very strong claims, and your
unwillingness or inability to answer even basic technical questions sends a
very strong and clear signal about the claims' validity.
It is my personal opinion that the AS-204 crew and their survivors, as well as
the people involved, deserve far better.
-- rk LaDonna Wyss wrote: > As I listen to firecrackers in the neighborhood, the following > question occurs to me: What is it we are celebrating? A day off for > barbeques and beer-drinking? It's supposed to be about the birth of > our nation, the signing of our Constitution. Yet, in reflecting on > what I've witnessed in this newsgroup and in my own life in the past > 19 months come tomorrow, I realize we haven't gotten away from "Mother > England" at all. People are not welcome to express opinions that > differ from those of the majority. People are not welcome to > challenge government institutions. NASA employees defend NASA to the > death--literally. They are willing to allow deaths go unanswered, > dooming more such deaths to occur, and no one will stand up and say, > "Enough!" It's better to keep your mouth shut and keep that paycheck > coming in. It's always about the Almighty Dollar, never about > principle, and certainly never about right and wrong. > I've spent all of this time trying to make a difference among people > who do not WANT difference. They want automatons, robots programmed > to speak whatever the government has pre-programmed them to say. > Don't ask question, don't raise eyebrows; go along with the flow and > you'll be accepted. Dare to stand up, and you will be shot down. > Is this what our Founding Fathers risked their lives to accomplish? > Was this their vision? I think they would feel much the same as I do > today: ASHAMED of this country and its citizens. Men and women who > are more worried about being accepted than about being TRUE. Men and > women who want the government to tell them how to act, think, and > feel. People who want the government to tell them how to behave, when > to ask questions, and when to shut up. > This news group is an unfortunate reflection of the thinking of our > country as a whole, and it makes me ashamed to be an American. We > have become what our founders fought to keep us from becoming: Pawns > of government. We have short-circuited our own liberties by refusing > to step out from the safeness of the crowd. We may as well burn the > First Amendment to the Constitution; in practice it means absolutely > nothing in today's society. > Happy Fourth of July. > LaDonna -- 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
- Next message: Mike Flugennock: "Re: Andrian Nikolayev Dead?"
- Previous message: Ool: "Re: And this is what this has to do with space policy... (Re: errors in Moore's film)"
- In reply to: LaDonna Wyss: "Independence Day Thoughts"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
