Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:44:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale said senior managers today agreed
to press ahead with a launch attempt even if one of four engine cutoff
- ECO - sensors in the ship's external fuel tank fails during the
final hours of the countdown.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061129frr/

Yes, they were saying after the last flight that they were finally
going to change that dumb rule. There was no reason they couldn't
have launched on the Friday before.

Rand, do you benefit or profit from making nasa look bad?

Not that I'm aware of. But I don't make NASA look bad. It's moronic
NASA defenders like you (who can't even spell its name properly) and
NASA's own actions that make it look bad. I simply point them out.
Certainly, if I were compensated for NASA looking bad, I'd be a very
wealthy man.

Wrong rand, your responsibility as an author is to answer a logical
request from a reader, as burden of proof is upon you the author to
clarify intentions and statements that can be misleading or
manipulative, ie marketing, (ie boasting if one product or service
isn't good enough, try another). Insulting the reader just
demonstrates you the authors' lack of writing skills to clarify a
readers request, and you the authors inability to manage a logical
valid question, and not a reflection of the reader.

So once again rand do you professionally benefit or profit from making
nasa look bad, because if you are in the private industry or consult in
the private industry then you do benefit from making nasa look bad.