Article 1, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/testapril02.asp states:
"After approximately five minutes, the EKV struck and destroyed the target
at a combined speed of nearly 26,000 kilometers per hour more than 225
kilometers above the Earth's surface."

Article 2, from the Economist, which you posted in it's entirety, states:
"...within eight minutes, the killer had detached itself, figured out which
was the fake target and collided with the real one at more than 16,000
miles per hour."

Your 'final word':
"I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports
now to support my claim that the tests were a failure."

Both articles state that the tests were successful, yet you insisted that
they failed. The only conclusion I could make at the time was that you were
_intentionally_ misreading the information to defend your position, and
declaring the discussion finished.

I don't believe that Dan was calling you a liar, though I course I could be
wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying that
term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as
unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say, in
effect, "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then you're
blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word."

Actually I did apply that term to Marc, for the reason I stated above,
sorry to disappoint. I took exception to the tone of supercilious dismissal
I detected in his final words, and while I should have used greater care in
wording my response I chose, in a moment of poor humor, to limit that
response to his 'word' limitation.

Marc - I am willing to retract my statement if you can show me, from the
two articles we discussed, that the two tests in question were in fact
technical failures; not whether the test objectives were stringent enough,
but that the hardware being tested actually failed to meet the criteria it
was being tested to.

Excuse me, Dan. Are you calling me a liar? Has the emotion of this issue
you to such a depth?

I hope you are calling a 3rd-party print source a liar. I don't know the
rules, but in many lists you'd be risking your membership with a personal
like that.

Dan R Allen wrote:

> Marc:
> I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected
> now to
> support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree,
> but I'm
> going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest.
> Dan:
> Here's your word Marc. "Liar"

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to