Dan, I said I'd give you the last word. You gave it: "liar". I asked for a
retraction. I'm not going back into the details of this -- the articles (in full,
and not just the small excerpts you post here) are both in the list archives. I'm
still waiting for the retraction of a personal slur.
Dan R Allen wrote:
> 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 ///
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.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!