On 16 Mar 2004 15:09:43 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

In article ,
* wrote:
, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Note followups.

In article ,
* wrote:
Hey anything to keep the thread in the public eye.

Actually, no. "Anything" is, in fact, grossly off topic in
sci.space.policy and sci.space.history .

But why is the below off topic?

Because it fails to meet the standards of verifyability
and repeatability required for it to be scientific evidence
or data.

Oh you mean that's why NASA never allowed independent scientific peer review
of Malin's Mars MOC photographs and instead allowed Malin to keep and own US
government property which is against the law.

What standards you chose to use in your life are your concern.
What standards you use posting to sci.space newsgroups
are subject to existing charters and community standards.
Your postings do not meet those standards.

You should hold NASA to those standards, I'm just the messenger.

Again: this is grossly off topic in the sci.space newsgroups
and because of that in violation of your internet service
provider's acceptable use policy. If you keep posting this,
eventually, everyone who normally posts in the sci.space
groups will complain to Earthlink and your account will go poof.

Oh baloney, it's quite on topic and you're blowing smoke up everyone's
behinds just like Lockheed/NASA.

Newsgroups are different groups for a reason. They have differing
standards and topic areas. It is not at all infringing on your
beliefs or right to discuss them for us to insist that you do
it in places where it is on topic and on charter. By posting
this over and over again, you are grossly disrespecting our
groups, our beliefs, and wasting our time. It is rude and
intolerant to post or crosspost off topic over and over again.

Since when is science a religion?


-george william herbert