Debate vs. Discussion (51-L)

Formal debate (argument) can be productive when clearly
delineated topics become polarized. That situation obviously
exists with 51-L in general. More important right now is the
polarized subtopic of the crew's cause of death.

Leading into that sizzling subtopic is the polarized title of RCS
data in the Rogers Report.

For some reason, another polarized topic (whether one SRM
set was mismatched, and to what effect) has been introduced.

Remember, Google refers to the sci.space groups as discussion
forums. Intelligent discussion is always a refreshing option to
formal debate. Formal debate on technical subjects often loses
the interest of those not well-versed in some shuttle disciplines.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

Formal debate (argument) can be productive when clearly
delineated topics become polarized. That situation obviously
exists with 51-L in general. More important right now is the
polarized subtopic of the crew's cause of death.

Leading into that sizzling subtopic is the polarized title of RCS
data in the Rogers Report.

For some reason, another polarized topic (whether one SRM
set was mismatched, and to what effect) has been introduced.

Remember, Google refers to the sci.space groups as discussion
forums. Intelligent discussion is always a refreshing option to
formal debate. Formal debate on technical subjects often loses
the interest of those not well-versed in some shuttle disciplines.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

Well, good! Let's get with it!

For months now, there has been a handful of individuals saying, "I've
got the data to support my contention, but everyone else will just have
to go look it up for themselves." Let's all just lay it out on the
table, then discuss what is and isn't.

Moe

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

Formal debate (argument) can be productive when clearly
delineated topics become polarized. That situation obviously
exists with 51-L in general. More important right now is the
polarized subtopic of the crew's cause of death.

Not the RCS? Not the alleged booster crossing? Not Niobium splatters? Not
telemetry? Not the quality (or lack thereof) of various sets of imagery? Not
any one of twenty subjects that have been broached and then dropped in the
last week? Now you see the point... Now you don't! I'll call this game
"Tic-Tac-Nuts".

For some reason, another polarized topic (whether one SRM
set was mismatched, and to what effect) has been introduced.

"For some reason", LOL, as if you don't know what that reason is...

Remember, Google refers to the sci.space groups as discussion
forums. Intelligent discussion is always a refreshing option to
formal debate. Formal debate on technical subjects often loses
the interest of those not well-versed in some shuttle disciplines.

Interesting strategy: Losing the game? Change the rules! I wish I was that
clever, but hey, I'm just a dumb kid who gets instructions from my "Masters"
via non-existent e-mails... And that's only half-right.

"Moe Blues" wrote in message
...

For months now, there has been a handful of individuals saying, "I've
got the data to support my contention, but everyone else will just have
to go look it up for themselves." Let's all just lay it out on the
table, then discuss what is and isn't.

That's not part of the plan.

I would actually LIKE to see data of any sort, on Challenger, or any other
shuttle mission in question for that matter. I haven't seen the Flight Ops
report that's been brought up a thread below this one.

I'm going to do the Johnny Carson hold-the-envelope-to-the-big-purple-hat
trick here. I bet that the most we'll get in "one weeks' time" is that JTM
crosses his heart and swears to die that the report DOESN'T address
easily-explained "critical issues" X, Y, and Z, and that means that there
was some big scary issue there related to The Conspiracy that they (in the
report) were willfully ignoring. Any requests for actual words from this
report that POSITIVELY indicate something amiss will go unanswered or evaded
with insults and allegations of willful blindness. Then comes three or four
days of hard, show-me-the-money questions from regulars, met with circular
arguments and insults from him and his kids, another suggested rule change,
and... Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

I can believe that there are psychologists watching this group as part of a
study. I'd hate to think where I fit in...

Are you on drugs, 'StormFalcon?' Or is it Van Gogh today?
Or Jerry Lewis, maybe? My guess is that Daniel has learned
enough from me over the years to know that event sequence
should establish the order of procedure. Ask him. Shyster
engineer Herbs reversed logical order when he regurgitated
this from the Rogers conclusions (to which Daniel replied):

http://tinyurl.com/jl09

Ask Herbs why he brought up the "hot" SRB. A little birdy?

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



Terrence Daniels wrote
in message news
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

For some reason, another polarized topic (whether one SRM
set was mismatched, and to what effect) has been introduced.

"For some reason", LOL, as if you don't know what that reason is...

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news
I can believe that there are psychologists watching this group as part of
a
study. I'd hate to think where I fit in...

On second thought, I know where I fit in and it's not somewhere good. I'm
washing my hands of this whole mess. Killfiled paranoid psychotic assclowns
stay killfiled, no more fun & games for me.

In article .net,
"Terrence Daniels" wrote:

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news
I can believe that there are psychologists watching this group as part of
a
study. I'd hate to think where I fit in...

On second thought, I know where I fit in and it's not somewhere good. I'm
washing my hands of this whole mess. Killfiled paranoid psychotic assclowns
stay killfiled, no more fun & games for me.



Excellent policy. On the other hand, until recently Daniel has been
logical and informative. Lately he's taken a turn towards unabridged
lunacy; however misdirected his theories are, they are laced with jargon
and semi-plausible bits and dribbles. There's at least enough meat
there to tease unsuspecting or ill-informed newbies. It is for this
reason why I still respond to him (and why I do NOT respond to his
father or brother - they're nothing but noise).

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
Excellent policy. On the other hand, until recently Daniel has been
logical and informative. Lately he's taken a turn towards unabridged
lunacy; however misdirected his theories are, they are laced with jargon
and semi-plausible bits and dribbles. There's at least enough meat
there to tease unsuspecting or ill-informed newbies. It is for this
reason why I still respond to him (and why I do NOT respond to his
father or brother - they're nothing but noise).

Well that's where he gets you, he seems vaguely sane and/or willing to
actually discuss things, then once he's got you repsonding, he defaults back
into his father's patented "Hohoho, (stupid nickname) is libeling me again
and/or can't see the truth!" mode.

I don't think it's really worth anybody's time to try and get verifiable
facts or real evidence out of them, because there won't be any. Ever. I
don't think I've seen this much psychological dysfunction in one small group
of people since high school. How people with such "impressive" resumes and
"high IQ's" can be such a bunch of juvenille ****ing troll-tastic losers,
deliberately ignorant of all established principles of argument & science,
who admittedly can't explain their way out of a wet paper sack, while
insisting that they can somehow see The Truth that the whole rest of the
human race can't... I don't know. I've got their number, and they ain't
worth the phone call. So... **** 'em. They're going nowhere and they know
it, or they wouldn't be here ****ing and moaning.

I'm going back to reading the good stuff and asking dumb questions about
shuttle systems.

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...
Are you on drugs, 'StormFalcon?' Or is it Van Gogh today?
Or Jerry Lewis, maybe? My guess is that Daniel has learned
enough from me over the years to know that event sequence
should establish the order of procedure. Ask him. Shyster
engineer Herbs reversed logical order when he regurgitated
this from the Rogers conclusions (to which Daniel replied):

http://tinyurl.com/jl09

Ask Herbs why he brought up the "hot" SRB. A little birdy?

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

Terrance is not who he seems I agree. I received an email that said he is petitioning
to get into the ring. He laid out his credentials and nothing in them shows
anything that can let him speak on the discussion or debate. I admit that I can't
as should he thus I will not get into technical areas as he is doing.
The only thing he has proven to me is he is an Anti Maxson sock puppet.
This will obviously side track the debate. Suggested action, ignore him and move on.
No further replies to him or any side trackers.

Paul trying to stay on track Maxson

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in message
link.net...
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
Excellent policy. On the other hand, until recently Daniel has been
logical and informative. Lately he's taken a turn towards unabridged
lunacy; however misdirected his theories are, they are laced with jargon
and semi-plausible bits and dribbles. There's at least enough meat
there to tease unsuspecting or ill-informed newbies. It is for this
reason why I still respond to him (and why I do NOT respond to his
father or brother - they're nothing but noise).

Well that's where he gets you, he seems vaguely sane and/or willing to
actually discuss things, then once he's got you repsonding, he defaults back
into his father's patented "Hohoho, (stupid nickname) is libeling me again
and/or can't see the truth!" mode.

I don't think it's really worth anybody's time to try and get verifiable
facts or real evidence out of them, because there won't be any. Ever. I
don't think I've seen this much psychological dysfunction in one small group
of people since high school. How people with such "impressive" resumes and
"high IQ's" can be such a bunch of juvenille ****ing troll-tastic losers,
deliberately ignorant of all established principles of argument & science,
who admittedly can't explain their way out of a wet paper sack, while
insisting that they can somehow see The Truth that the whole rest of the
human race can't... I don't know. I've got their number, and they ain't
worth the phone call. So... **** 'em. They're going nowhere and they know
it, or they wouldn't be here ****ing and moaning.

I'm going back to reading the good stuff and asking dumb questions about
shuttle systems.

Terrance has bowed out of the debate due to a closed mind (as a newbie here)
good. Herb is hedging. Best to get this all out of the way now.
I don't care what you or others think of me, I want closure on the issue.

Continue on, if I'm filtered this shouldn't matter. If I am not and I am adding to the
noise filter me too. Doesn't matter. I cannot add to the scientific aspects only legal ones
and the fact that I lived with my father then saw him after Challenger when I got out of the USN
and my family assisted him in his law suit in different ways after that. So I was there.

That is the limit of my involvement. Some are backing out before the debate
starts. To me this is good. I do not want closed minds, trolls, puppets etc
messing up what could be the return of this group and my life to normalcy
let's see where it goes. I'm in. Terrance is out, Herb is undecided and his sig change
hints as to why. John is in and so is Daniel. Anyone else care to drop out go ahead and say so now.

Paul Maxson

Paul Maxson wrote in message
...

I don't care what you or others think of me, I want closure on
the issue.
snip
let's see where it goes. I'm in. Terrance is out, Herb is undecided
and his sig change hints as to why. John is in and so is Daniel.

I'm not sure you understand what Daniel has committed to do via
his mammoth new website, within one week. As far as I know, it's
only to argue about 1) 'The STS 51-L Unmatched SRB Pair' and
2) 'RCS Data from STS-51L PC Report.'

I think we both would like to see him present and defend his findings
and conclusions about the crew cabin, but I can see that process
easily taking him 3-6 months in this group, or longer. I doubt that he
has all of that material web-ready and web-organized.

All I intend to do when he begins (assuming he or no one else scans
in JSC's 'STS 51-L Flight Operations Team Summary Report') is to
describe and/or quote NASA technical data, if it's needed to defend
my book (which of course was written mostly for the layman).

Daniel's views have always been his own. He has only recently said
that he supports my conclusions about a fireball crossing. I hope
sincerely that I will be able to support his conclusions about the crew.
We are alike in one respect. We seek the truth, wherever that leads.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)