Re: What a let down. . .

D. Scott Ferrin <sferrin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:k7k051pbf9rhmn5u573cbju831dde1ee68@xxxxxxx:

> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
><jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>D. Scott Ferrin <sferrin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>news:p430515ckkur3dq9hftt3kr36eff2a0jo0@xxxxxxx:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
>>><jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
>>>>true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
>>>>whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
>>>>budget.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Check the date, fool.
>
> Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

I did. I stand by my assessment. The proper "at first" reaction to *any*
big piece of space news on April 1 is not "Finally" until you figure out
it's a joke. It's "That's bull***" until you corroborate it by other
sources. Same thing for *any* piece of space news, big or small, posted on
Space Daily on any day of the year. When the two conditions are combined,
multiply the proper level of skepticism.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that if Space Daily posted, "The sky is
blue", that I'd necessarily double-check it before believing it. I *would*
go so far as to say that if the pope had died a little earlier, and somehow
Space Daily had been the first site to break the news on April 1, I
wouldn't have believed it until I read it somewhere else first. And that's
for a news story I *knew* was coming, just a matter of when.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.