Re: Credible Challenger Closure

On Jan 22, 11:12 am, nf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nicholas Fitzpatrick)
wrote:
In article <67497fc6-211b-4df6-b928-5bd6b67e6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

max...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <max...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

After replying to any initial comments, or to any questions about the
photogrammetrics of the event, I would like to proceed to the
pertinent portion of the caption to be analyzed.

I don't see how this is a simple request.  If it takes you more than one
post to make the request, it isn't a simple request.

If you deem the request (along with the way it was described and
introduced) to be unreasonable or beyond your level of interest, why
bother to reply?

This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago.  I can't imagine why there
is any reason to microanalyse the documents at this date.  No one
in their right mind has any belief that this wasn't anything other
than an accident.

To quote Grace Corrigan on the tenth anniversary, "So they say."

Whether wittingly or not, you've managed to take another cheap shot at
Grace, as well as other tireless educators and researchers who
continue in her stead.

JTM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Credible Challenger Closure
    ... pertinent portion of the caption to be analyzed. ... I don't see how this is a simple request. ... This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. ... You can't reason with him. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Credible Challenger Closure
    ... photogrammetrics of the event, I would like to proceed to the ... pertinent portion of the caption to be analyzed. ... I don't see how this is a simple request. ... This accident was put to bed over 20 years ago. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)