Re: What a let down. . .

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:58:05 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
<jsilverlight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In message <ukb251hrm9hgi5u0r8hlke4v2shmlihfm8@xxxxxxx>, D. Scott Ferrin
><sferrin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:49:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
>><jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>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 figured out it was BS before I got halfway through the article.
>>That and I'd made the mistake of thinking the site was a bit more
>>professional than to go for an April Fool's joke. Top it off with the
>>fact that the so-called "joke" is something they really ought to do. .
>>.
>But isn't that plausibility the whole basis of a good April Fool?
>And you need a professional site. http://www.nature.com can get away
>with it (though their one wasn't all that plausible :-) but if one
>appeared on http://www.enterprisemission.com/ you wouldn't be able to
>tell ("Face on Mars is Natural Feature", perhaps ?)


Yeah I was got.
.

Loading