Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:39:49 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:11:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: : : Such as? I can't think of any other than X-33. I'm not aware that
: : : X-34 had anything to do with manned spaceflight, and DC-XA wasn't
: : : really a Clinton initiative--they just inherited it (unless by
: : : "support" you mean "not go out of their way to kill"). And one of the
: : : few line item vetoes that Clinton used (before the USSC ruled it
: : : unconstitutional) was to kill funding for the military spaceplane in
: : : 1997.
: :
: : The question remains should NASA develop potential military spacecraft?
:
: : That question has nothing to do with anything written here by anyone.
: : Once again, you are the supreme village idiot of the newsgroup, and
: : master of the non-sequitur.
:
: Yeah, it is so far not related that you went out of your way at ad
: hominem, again. Why don't you state WHY it isn't related.

: Because NASA is a civilian agency, and DOESN'T DEVELOP MILITARY
: AIRCRAFT OR SPACECRAFT.

Fool! Did or did not the shuttle have DOD missions? The shuttle is
proof that when it comes to spacecraft that the DOD and NASA overlap.

Explain exactly what STS-51C, STS-51J, STS-27, STS-28, STS-33, STS-36,
STS-38, and STS-44 were all about. While you're at it tell the AF to stop
using TDRSS, I dare you!

: I will learn all you know, pass you and expose you along the way. Of
that
: I am certain! You had better ratcheted it up a notch to even last a year
: in this gambit. Mark my word!

: Knock yourself out.

You got the verb right, but not direct object.

You're a AA ballplayer than thinks he's in the Majors.

Eric