Re: NASA Chief Questions Whether Global Warming Is a Problem

On 1 Jun 2007, at 13:30, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > NASA initiated damage control Thursday as it tried to clarify remarks > made earlier in the day by the space agency's administrator, who told > a national radio audience that he doubted whether global warming was > really a problem. > >

Re: NASA: 'Star Wars'-Type Double Sunset Might Be Possible

"Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > This suggests the universe could be packed with planets that > > have two suns. Sunsets on some of those worlds would resemble the > > ones on Tatooine. > > > A _real double sunset_ would be a rare occasion, because eve

Re: NASA: 'Star Wars'-Type Double Sunset Might Be Possible

Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > This suggests the universe could be packed with planets that > have two suns. Sunsets on some of those worlds would resemble the > ones on Tatooine. > A _real double sunset_ would be a rare occasion, because even if planets around double stars are common (something t

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > Dan wrote: > > > Well, IMHO, the manned space prog

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > > Too bad that at least nine out of ten people you ask will > have no idea what happened on that date . . .and that > includes people who were alive and old enough to be in school then. Spoil sport! OK. I was 3 1/2. I don't remember the exact date but could

Re: NASA Goes Deep

At 10:08 PM Tuesday 2/27/2007, Doug wrote: >Dan wrote: > > > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess > > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10% > > of that for spending on science. > >How do you think the general public would rank

Re: NASA Goes Deep

Dan wrote: > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10% > of that for spending on science. How do you think the general public would rank Apollo in a list of human achievements? I'm confid

Re: NASA Goes Deep

Original Message: - From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep >One of the results from our space program that we have seen is that >yeast in low-gravity conditions generates better

Re: NASA Goes Deep

At 11:36 PM Sunday 2/25/2007, Max Battcher wrote: >On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something > > that was actually useful? > > If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making > > products tha

Re: NASA Goes Deep

On 2/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something > that was actually useful? > If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making > products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:29 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > It was and it wasn't, eh? > I think we

Re: NASA Goes Deep

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:20 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > IMO, the shuttle era space program (and a

Re: NASA Goes Deep

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>

RE: NASA Goes Deep

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: NASA Goes Deep > > > >

Re: NASA Goes Deep

> In hindsight, maybe the pace of progress was > predictable. Humans first explored Antarctica in > the early 20th century. Decades passed before we > had the technology that would allow us to > establish a permanent presence. History will > indicate the same for our interplanetary forays. > Our i

Re: NASA Reinstates the Dawn Mission

On 3/27/06, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > March 27, 2006 > > Erica Hupp/Dean Acosta > Headquarters, Washington > (202) 358-1237/1400 > > RELEASE: 06-108 > > NASA REINSTATES THE DAWN MISSION > > NASA senior management announced a decision Monday to reinstate the > Dawn mission, a rob

Re: NASA Concerned Over Approaching Asteroid

At 08:11 AM Saturday 7/30/2005, you wrote: This is the same asteroid that they thought would hit the Earth in 2029 and then they retracted that statement a few days later. If the probability of impact does go up, I wonder just how much political fighting there will be over budgets, methods and

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

Dave Land wrote: It's as if they are saying "We have to destroy our faith in order to save you." It seems to be closely related to the focus on "ownership" v. "stewardship." Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

On Feb 8, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: And why not? "Left Behind"-reading, Biblical-literalist eco-terrorists are plotting the demise

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: And why not? "Left Behind"-reading, Biblical-literalist eco-terrorists are plotting the demise of Earth in order to force God's hand and bring ab

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

Warren Ockrassa wrote: Um. Years ago I had a button that read, "Dear lord, please protect me from your followers." However, I'd appeal to something a little closer to material reality for help. ;) Hmm. Despite... or perhaps because... I'm Christian, I think I could wear that button, too. But I'

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Nick Lidster wrote: why not jsut turn their logic around on them and say that wouldnt god want all of amn to be saved... and if you want to hasten his return would you not also be condemed to the hellfires with the sinners? A fair question, Nick. I'm not sure that logic

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

; To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 3:29 PM Subject: Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life Warren, On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: And why not? "Left Behind"-reading, Biblical-literalist ec

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

Warren, On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: And why not? "Left Behind"-reading, Biblical-literalist eco-terrorists are plotting the demise of Earth in order to force God's hand and bring about the end of days anyway. Oh? Have you heard

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002172407_mars06.ht ml http://tinyurl.com/58hnw Global warming may be a scourge on Earth, but injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of Mars might be just the thing t

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:16:34 -0600, Robert G. Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Since warming Mars effectively reverts it to its past, more habitable state, this would give any possibly dormant life on Mars the chance to revive and develop further," she said. And for a little extra water we co

Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life

Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002172407_mars06.ht ml http://tinyurl.com/58hnw Global warming may be a scourge on Earth, but injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of Mars might be just the thing to turn the barren planet into a living, breathi

Re: NASA PARTNERS WITH TEACHER NETWORK FOR SCHOOL YEAR

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:40:05 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 04:08 PM Wednesday 9/15/04, Julia Randolph wrote: > >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:12:50 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > [I suppose some PR person decided that "NEAT" sounded better t

Re: NASA PARTNERS WITH TEACHER NETWORK FOR SCHOOL YEAR

At 04:08 PM Wednesday 9/15/04, Julia Randolph wrote: On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:12:50 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I suppose some PR person decided that "NEAT" sounded better than "booby > prize".] That would depend on the type of booby. ;) Julia Probably not the kind th

Re: NASA PARTNERS WITH TEACHER NETWORK FOR SCHOOL YEAR

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:12:50 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [I suppose some PR person decided that "NEAT" sounded better than "booby > prize".] That would depend on the type of booby. ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mai

Re: NASA Schedules News Briefing About Unusual Solar Object

- Original Message - From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:03 AM Subject: NASA Schedules News Briefing About Unusual Solar Object > > http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_n04040_solar_object.html > > Jane Pla

Re: NASA over-reaching again

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:47:34PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: > > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems I should never have repealed my policy of not discussing > > these sorts of matters with you. Starting now, that mistake will be > > rectified. > > At this rate Erik, you will h

Re: NASA over-reaching again

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems > I should never have repealed my policy of not discussing these sorts of > matters with you. Starting now, that mistake will be rectified. At this rate Erik, you will have no one left on this list to discuss things with sometime in 2005. ===

Re: NASA over-reaching again

- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: Re: NASA over-reaching again > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:47:56PM -0500, Robert Seeber

Re: NASA over-reaching again

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:47:56PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Do you have any substantive comments or references at all instead of > > your inane car comment? Evidently not. > The article you posted contains sentiments that are currently popula

Re: NASA over-reaching again

- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Re: NASA over-reaching again > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:53:35AM -0500, Robert Seeberger

Re: NASA over-reaching again

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:53:35AM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > So in your opinion its about money or making money? > > > As far as insults go, that was fairly pedestrian. I give you my > permission and my encouragement to try again. Here we go again. Okay, as far as ignorant comments go, yo

Re: NASA over-reaching again

- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Re: NASA over-reaching again > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:43:52AM -0500, Robert Seeberger wr

Re: NASA over-reaching again

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:43:52AM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > I vehemently disagree. I believe we should do both. Yes, I know. You should apply for a job at NASA. You, too, can join the group of visionless starry-eyed visionaries who excel at wasting billions of our dollars and accomplishin

Re: NASA over-reaching again

- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 7:44 AM Subject: NASA over-reaching again > NASA is a huge waste of tens of billions of dollars of our money. What > NASA really needs to do is to abandon manne

Re: NASA Plans For Space Station Orbiter

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:27:12PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Although it includes few specifics, the plan stipulates the > > > orbiter will be safer, cheaper and require less preparation time >

Re: NASA Plans For Space Station Orbiter

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:30 PM Subject: Re: NASA Plans For Space Station Orbiter > > - Original Message - > From: &q

Re: NASA Plans For Space Station Orbiter

- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:10 PM Subject: NASA Plans For Space Station Orbiter > > Although it includes few specifics, the plan stipulates the orbiter will be > safer, cheaper and require l

Re: NASA Historical budget

At 11:57 PM 2/2/2003 -0600, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM Subject: NASA Historical budget > I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for > NASA's budget

Re: NASA Historical budget

- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: Re: NASA Historical budget > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: NASA Historical budget

Have allocations changed? I can see the 1960's budgets going to Cold War theatre. There are (at least) three big parts to the NASA budget: 1) Manned space flight. 2) Unmanned solar-system exploration. 3) Basic Research (my favorite). Eg: fluid-dynamics, propulsion for civil aviation, and unman

Re: NASA Historical budget

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:51 PM Subject: NASA Historical budget > I did a bit of research, and have come up with the following numbers for > NASA's budget decade by decade. For the '60s, I had

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:19:25 -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote: >Now now. Three mile island has the river water three times removed from the >reactor. It cools the water that cools the water that cools the reactor. >And it's used in the cooling towers. And they keep a lot on site, they >don't constantly take

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

At 00:15 26-01-2003 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Does anyone have a rough idea of how the nuclear propulsion works? > Probably the same way a chemical rocket works, if the analogy nuclear rocket:chemical rocket::nuclear power plant:chemical power plant is valid: a fission reaction heats somet

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

At 01:55 AM 1/26/2003 +, you wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> But I have no idea how you could _cool_ the nuclear motor in space :-) > > Heat pipes, maybe? > And take the cool refrigerant from where? Nuclear power plants are placed near huge water masses so that the water may be used to cool

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

- Original Message - From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts > > Doug Pensinger asked: > > > > Does any

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> But I have no idea how you could _cool_ the nuclear motor in space :-) > > Heat pipes, maybe? > And take the cool refrigerant from where? Nuclear power plants are placed near huge water masses so that the water may be used to cool the reactor [and create three-eyed fishe

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Alberto Monteiro wrote: Doug Pensinger asked: Does anyone have a rough idea of how the nuclear propulsion works? Probably the same way a chemical rocket works, if the analogy nuclear rocket:chemical rocket::nuclear power plant:chemical power plant is valid: a fission reaction heats something

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Doug Pensinger asked: > > Does anyone have a rough idea of how the nuclear propulsion works? > Probably the same way a chemical rocket works, if the analogy nuclear rocket:chemical rocket::nuclear power plant:chemical power plant is valid: a fission reaction heats something that is ejected in the

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Richard Baker wrote: > >I'll be happier when I see engineers working on actual hardware. We've >been through this stage so many times before: the Space Exploration >Initiative, National Aerospace Plane, Delta Clipper, VentureStar, the >Space Launch Initiative... > NASA probably has learned somethi

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Doug said: > Does anyone have a rough idea of how the nuclear propulsion works? I haven't seen anything associated with Prometheus that describes the system involved, but if it's a nuclear thermal rocket then there's lots of information on the technology at http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/index.ht

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Andrew Crystall wrote: On 25 Jan 2003 at 18:18, Richard Baker wrote: Andy said: Whatever, I'm pleased that they're kickstarting the space effort again. I'll be happier when I see engineers working on actual hardware. We've been through this stage so many times before: the Space Exploration

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

On 25 Jan 2003 at 18:18, Richard Baker wrote: > Andy said: > > > Whatever, I'm pleased that they're kickstarting the space effort > > again. > > I'll be happier when I see engineers working on actual hardware. We've > been through this stage so many times before: the Space Exploration > Initiati

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

Andy said: > Whatever, I'm pleased that they're kickstarting the space effort > again. I'll be happier when I see engineers working on actual hardware. We've been through this stage so many times before: the Space Exploration Initiative, National Aerospace Plane, Delta Clipper, VentureStar, the

Re: NASA Chief Outlines New Nuclear, Space Plane Efforts

On 25 Jan 2003 at 11:19, Robert Seeberger wrote: quick summary: Whoohoo! > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/okeefe_nasa_030124. > html > NASA's O'Keefe said the objective of Project Prometheus is to hone > technologies that allow the agency to fly to "any number of > destinatio

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > --- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > At 21:01 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: > > It's 2:47am, Eastern Standard Time. I'm still at the > office, with no guesses as to when I'm getting out. > For God's sake, will the

Re: NASA

I understand the point of copyrights and how it is important to support the artists or authors you listen or read. But you see, not all of us can afford suscriprion to all of those newspaper, magazine, website. For now, I'm a poor student trying to learn more about the world. This mailing list p

Re: NASA

J. van Baardwijk wrote: Jeroen, I hope you carefully consider everything you post to the list. I dread the day you write something that upsets yourself. The nonsensical tirades you would write to the list complaining about your (alleged) misbehaviour.. Ray.

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 11:48 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, you wrote: --- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 21:01 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: It's 2:47am, Eastern Standard Time. I'm still at the office, with no guesses as to when I'm getting out. For God's sake, will the two of you both shut up?

Re: NASA

At 21:13 21-11-2002 -0500, you wrote: >>Which civilization are you a member of? Your civilization seems to be >>the Dutch civilization, and you have regularly framed your positions in >>terms of Dutch interest. > >I consider myself a member of the Terran civilisation. You have a strange way of

Re: Posting articles, was RE: NASA

At 21:05 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: >Jeroen "Shape up or ship out" van Baardwijk So, does this standard apply to you as well as to myself? i.e. given that you have conceded that you are violating community standards by reposting my off-list messages to you on-list, are you either: a

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 23:48 21-11-2002 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: It's 2:47am, Eastern Standard Time. I'm still at the office, with no guesses as to when I'm getting out. I take it that this is only a statement of fact, not a complaint? After all, you knew what you were getting into when you took the job. Bu

Re: Posting articles, was RE: NASA

At 20:55 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: >If they are so busy that they do not have the time to get to a newsstand, >then they probably also do not have the time to keep up with Brin-L, and >probably also do not have the time to read the full text of the article >on-line -- which makes post

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

--- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 21:01 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: It's 2:47am, Eastern Standard Time. I'm still at the office, with no guesses as to when I'm getting out. For God's sake, will the two of you both shut up? Don't you have _anything_ better to do?

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 20:17 21-11-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Anywhere you go on the net, the posting of private messages is considered to be an offense. Its a good way to become isolated from your peers! I think the damage (in terms of becoming isolated) is only minimal. To prove my point: All around th

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 21:01 21-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: >> Well, rather than Harumphing at Jeroen, I think that we could also >> take notice that he did not deny the first "Ding!" > >Of course I do not deny it; I readily admit that I posted your off-list >posts here (or more correctly, replied on-list to

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 18:42 21-11-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >Please cease this and return to more productive discussion, sir. > > I am trying to keep a productive discussion going here, but JDG refuses to > cooperate. > > DING! to JDG for refusing to reply on-list for no apparent reason. > > Please!!! S

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:01 PM Subject: RE: DING! (was Re: NASA) > At 03:20 PM 11/21/2002 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Well, rather than Harumphin

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

Jeroen wrote: >>Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>So, maybe there is something positive to focus on here as >>well.and maybe the accumulation of Ding!'s might spur the List >>into taking corrective action. > >Such as? Perhaps removing you from this list, as this kind of stuf

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 03:20 PM 11/21/2002 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Well, rather than Harumphing at Jeroen, I think that we could also take >> notice that he did not deny the first "Ding!" > >Of course I do not deny it; I readily admit that I posted your off-list >posts here (or more correctly, replied on-lis

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

Robert Seeberger wrote: Please!!! Someone put him out of our misery I didn't use a kill file on those people I found to be boorish, insulting or rude and unapologetic until very recently, but I've found that it works very well. That being said, most of the problem I see with this k

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

- Original Message - From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:32 AM Subject: Re: DING! (was Re: NASA) > At 18:11 20-11-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: > > >Please cease this and return

Re: Posting articles, was RE: NASA

"J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > > At 02:09 21-11-2002 -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > >And others will feel that the article might be interesting, but because of > >their busy schedules are not able to get to the newsstand for the next > >several days, by which time the issue with the article in q

Re: Posting articles, was RE: NASA

At 02:09 21-11-2002 -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: And others will feel that the article might be interesting, but because of their busy schedules are not able to get to the newsstand for the next several days, by which time the issue with the article in question is no longer available, so the

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 18:11 20-11-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: Please cease this and return to more productive discussion, sir. I am trying to keep a productive discussion going here, but JDG refuses to cooperate. DING! to JDG for refusing to reply on-list for no apparent reason. Jeroen "Ding dong" van Ba

Re: NASA

At 18:04 21-11-2002 +0100, John Giorgis wrote: Which civilization are you a member of? Your civilization seems to be the Dutch civilization, and you have regularly framed your positions in terms of Dutch interest. I consider myself a member of the Terran civilisation. I, on the other hand,

RE: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:14:06 +0100 > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 14:50 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re:

Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 06:19 PM 11/20/2002 -0600 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: > >In point of fact, my decision to subscribe to Salon Premium was, in > >fact, due to the quality of articles I saw from the Premium section. > > In other words, the very occasional posting of articles is actually

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 14:48 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: DING! (was Re: NASA) > >> DING! to Adam for unwarranted dinging. > > > >Unwarran

RE: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 14:50 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA) > >In point of fact, my decision to subscribe to Salon Premium was, i

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: Adam C. Lipscomb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 13:48 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: DING! (was Re: NASA) > Jeroen wondered: > > Personal attack? What personal attack? > > I

RE: NASA

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 14:04 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: RE: NASA [JDG claims that it is highly unlikely that by posting entire articles from _The Economist_ here, he may

Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

At 06:19 PM 11/20/2002 -0600 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: >In point of fact, my decision to subscribe to Salon Premium was, in >fact, due to the quality of articles I saw from the Premium section. In other words, the very occasional posting of articles is actually a form of free advertising for the pub

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

At 06:48 AM 11/21/2002 -0600 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: >> DING! to Adam for unwarranted dinging. > >Unwarranted? Bah! *waves hand dismissively* > >I'll ask you again to please keep it civil, good sir.> Well, rather than Harumphing at Jeroen, I think that we could also take notice that he did not d

Re: DING! (was Re: NASA)

Jeroen wondered: > Personal attack? What personal attack? I quote: "I find it hilarious that *you*, of all people, should complain about someone else violating basic Netiquette." In light of your running vendetta against John, this is, IMO, a personal attack. > DING! to Adam for unwarranted ding

RE: Posting articles, was RE: NASA

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: Ronn Blankenship > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 9:09 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Posting articles, was RE: NASA > >Posting a few articles here will probably not influence someone

Posting articles, was RE: NASA

At 02:50 AM 11/20/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: iaamoac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: dinsdag 19 november 2002 21:28 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: NASA > John, have you ever considered the fact that posting

RE: NASA

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: iaamoac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2002 18:58 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: NASA > > >By posting entire articles, those people will now have no reason to > > >go out and

RE: DING! (was Re: NASA)

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: Adam C. Lipscomb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 1:12 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: DING! (was Re: NASA) > DING! to Jeroen - posting offlist mail to the list. > > DING! to Jeroen - pe

Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:58:31PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > I know this isn't exactly the situation you're referring to, since > salon.com's content is not printed and sold in hardcopy form, but > I've posted a few articles here that were from the Premium section > of salon. i had

Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

Jon wrote: > I know this isn't exactly the situation you're referring to, since > salon.com's content is not printed and sold in hardcopy form, but I've > posted a few articles here that were from the Premium section of salon. i > had no personal problem with doing so, either, as long as it was a

DING! (was Re: NASA)

Jeroen wrote: > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2002 14:19 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: RE: NASA > > > >And why do you refuse to answer simple q

RE: NASA

At 05:58 20-11-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > And why do you refuse to answer simple questions on-line? (This is also > not a rhetorical question.) Free advice, worth every penny you paid for it: It is hardly ever a good idea to ask people "why" questions about their behavior, unless your goa

Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA)

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: NASA Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:17:02 +0100 > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2002 14:19 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: RE: NASA > >> John, have

  1   2   >