LaDonna DID say "Scott says", but denies it

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote
G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here
have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout
of the firing commands,
but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to
constitute verifiable
documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right
there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely
hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it
sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying,
nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said
that." NOT ONCE.

JimO contributes new comment:
Funny, I recall this message from two days ago,

---begin quote---
From: "LaDonna Wyss"
Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

"JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
---end quote---

JimO resumes the narrative:

We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that
shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day.

JimO wrote:

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote
G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here have also suggested, as I did, that this test
procedure was a checkout of the firing commands, but not a 'hot-fire'
of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to constitute
verifiable documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right
there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely
hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it
sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying,
nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said
that." NOT ONCE.

JimO contributes new comment:
Funny, I recall this message from two days ago,

---begin quote---
From: "LaDonna Wyss"
Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

"JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
---end quote---

JimO resumes the narrative:

We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that
shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day.

This also calls into question the assertion made in LaDonna's first post:

3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed
Scott's allegations but has also revealed much more supporting
evidence. Anyone who is interested may feel free to post to this
thread, email me, or both.

It doesn't appear to be an "independent" investigation.

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Dealing properly with very rare events is one of the attributes that
distinguishes a design that is fit for safety-critical systems from one that
is not." -- John Rushby in "A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety-
Critical Embedded Systems," March 2003

rk wrote in message ...
JimO wrote:

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote
G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here have also suggested, as I did, that this test
procedure was a checkout of the firing commands, but not a 'hot-fire'
of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to constitute
verifiable documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right
there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely
hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it
sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying,
nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said
that." NOT ONCE.

JimO contributes new comment:
Funny, I recall this message from two days ago,

---begin quote---
From: "LaDonna Wyss"
Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript
Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

"JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
---end quote---

JimO resumes the narrative:

We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that
shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day.

This also calls into question the assertion made in LaDonna's first post:

3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed
Scott's allegations but has also revealed much more supporting
evidence. Anyone who is interested may feel free to post to this
thread, email me, or both.

It doesn't appear to be an "independent" investigation.

Hello, are you people REALLY this dumb? Saying, "As Scott says" or
"As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the
dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a
freaking parrot! I could just as easily say, "Well, as President Bush
said in his campaign, the democrats blah blah blah." That does NOT
make me his mouthpiece, does NOT make me his apologist, does NOT mean
I'm on his payroll, and does NOT mean I haven't done my homework. It
simply means I agree with what I heard the man to say.
GEEZ, I cannot believe the elementary school mentality in here.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Saying, "As Scott says" or
"As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the
dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a
freaking parrot!

Is this a weasel, or has she moved up to ferret stage?

Has she skipped all the way to rat? Or even possum?

I'm on his payroll

I would have thought his mommie's bed was pay enough.

I haven't done my homework.

That's what we've been saying. You're welcome to provide verifiable
references to the contrary.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Saying, "As Scott says" or
"As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the
dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a
freaking parrot!

Is this a weasel, or has she moved up to ferret stage?

Has she skipped all the way to rat? Or even possum?

I'm on his payroll

I would have thought his mommie's bed was pay enough.

I haven't done my homework.

That's what we've been saying. You're welcome to provide verifiable
references to the contrary.


Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious.
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious.

I have poor material to work with.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious.

I have poor material to work with.

It seems to work just fine for your purposes.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious.

I have poor material to work with.

It seems to work just fine for your purposes.

That's because I provide verifiable references.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious.

I have poor material to work with.

It seems to work just fine for your purposes.

That's because I provide verifiable references.

WHAT verifiable references? Made-up email addresses with made-up
quotes allegedly from me, rearranged and completely out-of-context
"quotes" from my postings? What in the world is verifiable about your
behavior, other than it came from the first page of "Democratic
Tactics 101?"
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Made-up email addresses with made-up
quotes allegedly from me, rearranged

Again, repeating the lie doesn't make it so. I haven't *rearranged* so much
as a single character, and anyone can check the original post to verify.

What in the world is verifiable about your
behavior

I provide a verifiable reference to the post I'm quoting from, every time.
That's how everyone can see that you are plainly *lying* when you say I
misquote you or rearrange your words. Every word I quote came from you, in
the order I quote it, and your claims to the contrary are blatant lies.