Dan C wrote:

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.

Yes it is exactly what I wrote and it is exactly what I intended--but it
was in context to the contention you raised of an imminent disaster and
you'll note the emphasis on the single sensor (as opposed to the
functionality of the system). That's significantly different than
implying I said the functionality of the system was unimportant or that
the sensor was of no importance.

....
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.

If you do, you haven't shared any of it, nor even provided any direct
references to it.

Where is there information that indicates either that the AP report
which I posted a link to or that the information I saw on the NASA press
conference shows that I was wrong in asserting that the single sensor
was/is not a cause for an imminent failure and was only an issue in
aborting the first launch because the operational procedures in effect
for that launch were written to require 4/4 logic instead of the prior
2/4?

....
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.

Then you can surely direct me to it so I can then educate myself if, in
fact, what NASA said in an open press conference (which I saw extracts
of) was in error?