On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:44:55 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

My intent was the reverse...because it is one of four redundant
systems in a backup system, this particular sensor isn't all that
important...

How's that?

Great job of taking my comment out of context and interpreting it as you
wanted, rather than for what it says...

Nice try at backing out... I didn't snip that out of the middle of a
sentence or anything. It is a direct and complete quote of what you said.

I understand how you could draw the conclusion you have based on the
reporting, I'm simply trying to show you the fact that what was
reported, while not exactly incorrect wasn't the whole story and, in
fact, was designed to elicit the type of response you made rather than
to educate.

My conclusions are drawn on much more than the national news reporting.
In fact that is not even a factor in my conclusions.

The point in continuing is to try to educate to hopefully provide you
a better appreciation of what the issue really was...the problem appears
to be that you're more interested in defending your position than in
finding out the truth.

I don't need you to "educate" me. I have much more first hand knowledge
available to me than you do, I can assure you.

I wasn't able to find an actual transcript of the NASA conference, but
here's how it was reported by a national news service which does reflect
what I actually saw on the news conferen. And, this is the only place
I've seen the extra description of how the redundant system actually
functions.

I don't care what's in a conference or a news service. Apparently we both
know that it's just fluff for the masses. I have the accurate
information, thank you very much.

Actually, I designed/built/started-up power nuclear reactors, not
rockets...

You say that in the past tense. Chernobyl, perhaps? TMI?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951