Re: Worth The Mission?


"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44d06fec.124059448@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:25:04 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" <Write@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Geez, I hope someone other than Haller comments on the piece.


What's that old saying, be careful for what you wish for!


"Mike Griffin, the NASA administrator, overruled them and
made a decision to fly."


This situation reminds me a bit of the fix we got ourselves into
when we first invaded Italy in ww2. Remember what happened?

<bizarre and non-sequitur comparison to Monte Cassino campaign
snipped>


Since analogies are difficult for you, I'll speak slower and use
smaller words. If the initial goal is weak or poorly thought out, then
all else associated with that effort will be similarly weak.
And the goal is lost, overwhelmed by the difficulties when
one problem is piled upon another.




Oh, and I counted one sentence in your article that was
77 words long.

So?


If you don't know what a run-on sentence is, then you might
want to reconsider the notion of writing in public.




Do you have any substantive comments?


Not that you could comprehend. But I'll try anyway.
You can't seem to understand why people get so upset
when we lose a crew. Nasa is more than just another agency.
The crews are more than just employees. They represent
the hopes and dreams of a better future for our nation.

They are national symbols.

When they die, a portion of our dreams die with them.
Of course it hurts when they die, it hurts alot.




I guess I should have said, "I hope that someone besides Haller and
'Jonathan' responds..."


That's what happens when people use their real names, they worry
about all sorts of stupid little things.


s





.