What a let down. . .

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
news
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
budget.

Why?

Check the date, fool.

Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:24:50 -0600, D. Scott Fool
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
news
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
budget.

Why?

Check the date, fool.

Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

....We did. Prognosis stands. Fool.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
news
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
budget.

Why?

Check the date, fool.

Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

I did. I stand by my assessment. The proper "at first" reaction to *any*
big piece of space news on April 1 is not "Finally" until you figure out
it's a joke. It's "That's bull****" until you corroborate it by other
sources. Same thing for *any* piece of space news, big or small, posted on
Space Daily on any day of the year. When the two conditions are combined,
multiply the proper level of skepticism.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that if Space Daily posted, "The sky is
blue", that I'd necessarily double-check it before believing it. I *would*
go so far as to say that if the pope had died a little earlier, and somehow
Space Daily had been the first site to break the news on April 1, I
wouldn't have believed it until I read it somewhere else first. And that's
for a news story I *knew* was coming, just a matter of when.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Andrew Gray wrote:

...then he'd say "I'm Anglican"?



Then we burn him for heresy. Just like a witch.

Cardinal Biggles

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:49:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
news
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
budget.

Why?

Check the date, fool.

Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

I did. I stand by my assessment. The proper "at first" reaction to *any*
big piece of space news on April 1 is not "Finally" until you figure out
it's a joke. It's "That's bull****" until you corroborate it by other
sources. Same thing for *any* piece of space news, big or small, posted on
Space Daily on any day of the year. When the two conditions are combined,
multiply the proper level of skepticism.


I figured out it was BS before I got halfway through the article.
That and I'd made the mistake of thinking the site was a bit more
professional than to go for an April Fool's joke. Top it off with the
fact that the so-called "joke" is something they really ought to do. .
..

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:31:45 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:24:50 -0600, D. Scott Fool
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:28:07 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

D. Scott Ferrin wrote in
news
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:17:13 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

He's saying you'd have to be a fool to believe that this article was
true, even "at first", even if it was only for a second, regardless of
whether you think the shuttle program is the best use of NASA's
budget.

Why?

Check the date, fool.

Read my first post in it's entirety Fool.

...We did. Prognosis stands. Fool.

OM


I guess I WOULD have to be a fool to think they'd ever pull their
heads out in regard to the Shuttle. The great white albatross.

In message , D. Scott Ferrin
writes
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:49:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

I did. I stand by my assessment. The proper "at first" reaction to *any*
big piece of space news on April 1 is not "Finally" until you figure out
it's a joke. It's "That's bull****" until you corroborate it by other
sources. Same thing for *any* piece of space news, big or small, posted on
Space Daily on any day of the year. When the two conditions are combined,
multiply the proper level of skepticism.


I figured out it was BS before I got halfway through the article.
That and I'd made the mistake of thinking the site was a bit more
professional than to go for an April Fool's joke. Top it off with the
fact that the so-called "joke" is something they really ought to do. .
.
But isn't that plausibility the whole basis of a good April Fool?
And you need a professional site. http://www.nature.com can get away
with it (though their one wasn't all that plausible :-) but if one
appeared on http://www.enterprisemission.com/ you wouldn't be able to
tell ("Face on Mars is Natural Feature", perhaps ?)
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:58:05 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , D. Scott Ferrin
writes
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:49:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

I did. I stand by my assessment. The proper "at first" reaction to *any*
big piece of space news on April 1 is not "Finally" until you figure out
it's a joke. It's "That's bull****" until you corroborate it by other
sources. Same thing for *any* piece of space news, big or small, posted on
Space Daily on any day of the year. When the two conditions are combined,
multiply the proper level of skepticism.


I figured out it was BS before I got halfway through the article.
That and I'd made the mistake of thinking the site was a bit more
professional than to go for an April Fool's joke. Top it off with the
fact that the so-called "joke" is something they really ought to do. .
.
But isn't that plausibility the whole basis of a good April Fool?
And you need a professional site. http://www.nature.com can get away
with it (though their one wasn't all that plausible :-) but if one
appeared on http://www.enterprisemission.com/ you wouldn't be able to
tell ("Face on Mars is Natural Feature", perhaps ?)


Yeah I was got.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

But isn't that plausibility the whole basis of a good April Fool?
And you need a professional site. http://www.nature.com can get away
with it (though their one wasn't all that plausible :-) but if one
appeared on http://www.enterprisemission.com/ you wouldn't be able to
tell ("Face on Mars is Natural Feature", perhaps ?)


That reminds me of the German newspaper in the inflation ravaged Germany
of the Weimar Republic which ran the contest to find who could write the
most unlikely newspaper headline.
The winner?
"Archduke Ferdinand found alive; war a mistake."

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

But isn't that plausibility the whole basis of a good April Fool?
And you need a professional site. http://www.nature.com can get
away
with it (though their one wasn't all that plausible :-) but if one
appeared on http://www.enterprisemission.com/ you wouldn't be able
to
tell ("Face on Mars is Natural Feature", perhaps ?)


That reminds me of the German newspaper in the inflation ravaged
Germany
of the Weimar Republic which ran the contest to find who could write
the
most unlikely newspaper headline.
The winner?
"Archduke Ferdinand found alive; war a mistake."

Pat

At that time, the most unlikely headline would probably be:

"Wallpaper hanger to be next Chancellor of Germany"

8-O


Rusty