Gemini and Modularity ...

Thanks. Too bad the photo doesn't show the thrusters very well...and
by the way, "through" should have been "threw." :-) Good to see you
again, RK, and if you have something to contribute to the Neil
Armstrong Screwing the Pooch Discussion, please feel free to jump right
in.
LaDonna

wrote:
Thanks. Too bad the photo doesn't show the thrusters very well...

It's interesting that you point this out. Does this mean that you've
found no such documents which *do* show the Gemini thruster config'?
-Mark Martin

[...]
by the way, "through" should have been "threw."

Or perhaps "throw". As in, "I throw this spanner in the works".

/dps

PS Indeed, some Americans *do* have an idea of what a spanner is!

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

rk wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:

wrote:
Thanks. Too bad the photo doesn't show the thrusters very well...

No, it's not too bad. That picture was meant to discuss modularity,
not
thrusters. Snipping out context again, eh? That trick doesn't work
very
well, I'm afraid.


It's interesting that you point this out. Does this mean that
you've
found no such documents which *do* show the Gemini thruster
config'?

Such an expert clearly would have that documentation. Of course, I
had posted
that recently anyways. So it goes.

Well- I wasn't posting to you. I was speaking to hpywife. My post
branches off hers, and that's her text I quoted. Not paying attention
to to who's talking to whom? That doesn't work very well either.
-Mark Martin

rk wrote:
D Schneider wrote:

[...]
by the way, "through" should have been "threw."

BZZZZTTT!!! Incorrect answer. Deduct 10 points.

Now, go back and answer the technical questions about you and your
team's
"research." Or are you just here to comment on typographical errors?

Hey man, you're not shaping up too well. Schneider was only commenting
on Hpywife. *SHE* is the one who said, 'by the way, "through" should
have been "threw."'. She was the one criticising *your* typo. Since you
aren't chastising her for this very same thing, I gather that, just as
you did with me above, you don't seem able to even follow who is
speaking to whom.

-Mark Martin

wrote:

rk wrote:
[..]
Hey man, you're not shaping up too well. Schneider was only commenting
on Hpywife.

[...] Since you aren't chastising her for this very same thing,

Oh, but he did! He just didn't restore the attribution I omitted...

I gather that, just as you did with me above, you don't seem able toeven
follow who is speaking to whom.


Funny, that wasn't my impression at all.

And I'll treasure my 10 points!

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article . com,
wrote:

Not paying attention
to to who's talking to whom? That doesn't work very well either.
-Mark Martin

Who the **** are you? And why do you care what a lying netkook like
LaLiar says? Google her name and see how full of **** she is. This
is just her latest crusade.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic
oscillations tear apart bridges."
~Hop David
http://www.angryherb.net

rk wrote:
wrote:

rk wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:

wrote:
Thanks. Too bad the photo doesn't show the thrusters very
well...

No, it's not too bad. That picture was meant to discuss
modularity,
not thrusters. Snipping out context again, eh? That trick
doesn't
work very well, I'm afraid.


It's interesting that you point this out. Does this mean that
you've
found no such documents which *do* show the Gemini thruster
config'?

Such an expert clearly would have that documentation. Of course,
I
had posted that recently anyways. So it goes.

Well- I wasn't posting to you. I was speaking to hpywife. My post
branches off hers, and that's her text I quoted. Not paying
attention
to to who's talking to whom? That doesn't work very well either.

Actually I nested and commented to the appropriate parts, was paying
attention, quite carefully. Count the angle brackets ... not a
biggie ...

Hey man, I apolgise. I became confused because you seem to be reacting
to hpywife by way of quotes by her in others' posts back to her. I
don't post in this group very often, and I'm not fluent in who can be
relied upon to know what they're talking about. Sorry about all that.
-Mark Martin

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Not paying attention
to to who's talking to whom? That doesn't work very well either.
-Mark Martin

why do you care what a lying netkook like
LaLiar says? Google her name and see how full of **** she is. This
is just her latest crusade.

Yes, you're right. I mostly post in sci.physics, and I occasionally
come over to this group to see what's going on. I have to confess, I
have an appetite for the entertainment value of Haller's contributions.
That, and Brad Guth... So you can imagine how great is was to discover
hpywife. She appears to be posting from a Guatemalan insane asylum.
-Mark Martin

wrote in message
ups.com...
Well- I wasn't posting to you. I was speaking to hpywife.

Hey dumbass, you posted to *Usenet*, which means you're posting to the
world. If you pumped enough crack into your system to want to talk to
LaToya, email her- be one of her imaginary supporters. If you want to chat
with her exclusively, don't post.