"Flight proven" is the new "Certified Pre-Owned"

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:27:32 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-30 15:01, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/spa...ets-2016-08-30


I wonder if Cape Canaveral will be *totally* business as usual, of if
they will move all equipment out, batten down the hatches if they think
higher risk of failure, just in case.


If they thought they needed to do that they just wouldn't allow the
launch.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Which is a very likely consequence of today's FTS failure. This would cause movement of the launches from Canaveral, and give a pretext for some SpaceX clients to cancel their orders.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on that basis..

It's about
the only time following up your own post is acceptable.

About - but not always. As I said, you and your friends create such a toxic and unfriendly environment, exceptions are made.

However, as
we've seen, Mookie follows up his own articles just to hear himself
talk some more and now we see that his method to 'correct errors' is
to repeat an entire posting.

A toxic place is a place that is marked by significant drama and infighting, where personal battles often harm productivity. Toxic places are often considered the result of toxic people who are motivated by personal feelings of power or special status and feel they can use unethical, mean-spirited and sometimes illegal means to manipulate and annoy those around them; and whose motives are to maintain or increase power or special status or divert attention away from their performance shortfalls and misdeeds.

Toxic persons do not recognize a duty to the group for which they post or their co-workers in terms of ethics or professional conduct toward others. Toxic people define relationships with others, not by organizational structure but by co-workers they favour and those they do not like or trust.

Quite similarly, Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its people, and hold that toxicity arises when people suffer a breach in psychological contract.

In the United States, the issue of bullying is getting increasing attention from state governments; twenty-six states have introduced anti-bullying legislation which provides a definition of this conduct and support for those who address the behaviour through legal action.

What a maroon...

Quoting an old animated character is reflective of your diminished mental capacity.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:13:47 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same post with the error corrected. Blowhard.

You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.

Oh well, so will the correction and your stupid observations. lol.

There you go projecting again...

Several people here know the basics of how Usenet News cancellations
work. You refuse to listen to us. Please learn the basics of how
Usenet News works before you go shooting off your mouth yet again. Your
lack of willingness to learn the basics makes *you* look like you fit
the textbook definition of stupid.

stupid
adjective
Simple Definition of stupid : not intelligent : having or showing
a lack of ability to learn and understand things

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:00:28 AM UTC+12, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-30 15:01, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/spa...ets-2016-08-30


I wonder if Cape Canaveral will be *totally* business as usual, of if
they will move all equipment out, batten down the hatches if they think
higher risk of failure, just in case.

The damage at Wallops was fairly extensive and took quite a while before
site became functional again. I am sure the Cape launch facility doesn't
want to be down for that long.

(not saying that the "flight proven" rocket has higher risk, but
wondering what Cape folks think).

If this was done before the FTS failure today, its prescient don't you think? This is the sort of publicity that could kill SpaceX and maintain the artificial scarcity I spoke of yesterday, particularly if the alliances with insurers is tested.

That is an opinion with no basis in fact.

This ground test accident is not going to "kill" SpaceX. Accidents
happen. Their customers have *already* expressed support for the
company. Besides, this accident clearly has *nothing* to do with reuse.
There was no reused first stage on this flight. Also, the fire looks
like it started in the vicinity of the 2nd stage LOX tank. SpaceX has
not recovered Falcon 2nd stage and has no plans to do so (at least the
Merlin powered version).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:27:32 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-30 15:01, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/spa...ets-2016-08-30


I wonder if Cape Canaveral will be *totally* business as usual, of if
they will move all equipment out, batten down the hatches if they think
higher risk of failure, just in case.


If they thought they needed to do that they just wouldn't allow the
launch.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Which is a very likely consequence of today's FTS failure. This would cause movement of the launches from Canaveral, and give a pretext for some SpaceX clients to cancel their orders.

Depending on the damage to LC-40, we could see the next launch from
Florida happen from KSC Pad 39A (former shuttle pad converted to
facilitate Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches). Considering the very
long history of Cape Canaveral, they already have sufficient procedures
in place which take into account the fact that sometimes launch vehicles
go "boom". The various launch facilities were all *designed* with that
in mind. This is why the launch pads are spaced so far apart. You
don't want one accident to take out multiple launch pads.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on that basis.

That statement is completely illogical. You are the only one in this
group repeatedly engaging in the inane behavior of canceling a post and
then reposting it in its entirety with a "fix". You have been
repeatedly told why cancellations don't work and yet you keep behaving
like they do. You have also been told what the accepted practice is to
handle the situation where you discover your post has an error, yet you
refuse to follow that accepted practice.

Why do you insist on being bull-headed and then blame others for your
refusal to follow accepted norms?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same
post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an
especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on
that basis.

Even if that were true, this behavior makes no sense.

As others have pointed out, cancels rarely work. That has nothing to do with
whether or not this is a toxic group.


It's about
the only time following up your own post is acceptable.

About - but not always. As I said, you and your friends create such a
toxic and unfriendly environment, exceptions are made.

Again, even if this is true, what you're doing is a completely unrelated
issue and doesn't change a thing. If anything it only makes things worse.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:33:26 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same
post with the error corrected. Blowhard.


You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.


And this is precisely why normal Usenet NEWS practice is to just
follow up your original article with ONLY the correction.

That's true, its the USUAL practice, but you've made this group an
especially toxic environment in which to post, so exceptions are made on
that basis.

Even if that were true, this behavior makes no sense.

As the central toxic personality on this group, I would expect you to say something like that.

As others have pointed out, cancels rarely work. That has nothing to do with
whether or not this is a toxic group.

You make no sense. I make a statement in reply to an observation that only the correction should have been posted and you talk as if we're discussing why cancels rarely work.

I felt if I had posted only the correction without the context it would become of the focus of your toxic personality.



It's about
the only time following up your own post is acceptable.

About - but not always. As I said, you and your friends create such a
toxic and unfriendly environment, exceptions are made.

Again, even if this is true,

Which it is.

what you're doing is a completely unrelated
issue

Unrelated to the strawman issue you just floated about why cancels rarely work. Very much related to why I just didn't post a correction.

and doesn't change a thing.

Nothing will change here until you do.

If anything it only makes things worse.

Makes what worse? Its obvious you know what you're doing - you float the strawman argument that you're talking about why cancels don't work, and use that to call me stupid, when you know for a fact that I was replying to a comment about why I didn't just post the correction.

You are a fraud and a blowhard and a toxic personality that makes it very difficult for people to have useful productive conversations here. On balance you are a net negative to this group.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:19:36 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:13:47 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 6:42:40 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
You appear to be repeating yourself (yet again), MookBot.

William Mook wrote:

snip echo


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

I deleted one post with a mathematical error and reposted the same post with the error corrected. Blowhard.

You can't delete posts from Usenet News you dolt. You've been told
repeatedly why this is the case. You can try to cancel a post, but many
(most?) newservers will already have propagated the post to other
servers by then. And many (most?) servers simply ignore the cancel
request anyway.

So your math error will be preserved in perpetuity.

Oh well, so will the correction and your stupid observations. lol.

There you go projecting again...

Not really.

Several people here know the basics of how Usenet News cancellations
work.

Which isn't the point. You don't get that.

You refuse to listen to us.

That is what bothers you isn't it? lol. Your self importance is paramount.

Please learn the basics of how
Usenet News works

That's not the point. The point is I didn't post the correction by itself because of the seething hatred you and Greg spew no matter what is said.

before you go shooting off your mouth yet again.

You're the one calling names and making things up and ranting about nothing at all.
You're the one who needs lessons on the finer arts of etiquette you blowhard.

lack of willingness to learn the basics makes *you* look like you fit
the textbook definition of stupid.

Your lack of willingness to be a decent human being makes you look like a toxic personality.

stupid
adjective
Simple Definition of stupid : not intelligent : having or showing
a lack of ability to learn and understand things

You are a blowhard. Making things up and ranting about it just to feel a little bit better about yourself.

Seek professional help.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:28:27 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:27:32 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-30 15:01, Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that "flight proven" is now "officially" to used rockets
what "certified pre-owned" is to used cars:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/spa...ets-2016-08-30


I wonder if Cape Canaveral will be *totally* business as usual, of if
they will move all equipment out, batten down the hatches if they think
higher risk of failure, just in case.


If they thought they needed to do that they just wouldn't allow the
launch.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Which is a very likely consequence of today's FTS failure. This would cause movement of the launches from Canaveral, and give a pretext for some SpaceX clients to cancel their orders.

Depending on the damage to LC-40, we could see the next launch from
Florida happen from KSC Pad 39A (former shuttle pad converted to
facilitate Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches). Considering the very
long history of Cape Canaveral, they already have sufficient procedures
in place which take into account the fact that sometimes launch vehicles
go "boom". The various launch facilities were all *designed* with that
in mind. This is why the launch pads are spaced so far apart. You
don't want one accident to take out multiple launch pads.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_yguLapgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJP5ncnLwgE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzRKVdiuLSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCWunnJXdm0