Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again

2008-02-23 Thread Mike Carrell
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:48:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] I haven't

Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again

2008-02-22 Thread Jed Rothwell
[Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] thomas malloy wrote: Last night on the BBC news they reported the then breaking news that the American missile had hit the spy satellite. I couldn't help but smile, Parksie was wrong yet again. Long term Vortexians will recall his

Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again

2008-02-22 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence
Jed Rothwell wrote: [Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] thomas malloy wrote: Last night on the BBC news they reported the then breaking news that the American missile had hit the spy satellite. I couldn't help but smile, Parksie was wrong yet again. Long term

Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again

2008-02-22 Thread Jed Rothwell
[Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ballistic missile warheads reenter with a velocity of something like mach 20. A balloon dropped from such a warhead would not drift away; rather, it would do something closer to splatter. The balloons would

Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again

2008-02-22 Thread Robin van Spaandonk
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:48:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] I haven't been following the list lately (bad Steve) so maybe someone (Jones?) has already covered this, but the question of *WHY* the U.S. chose to shoot down that satellite is an interesting one. From