dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 4 06:52:07 MST 2003
I think Charles and Armand have pretty well covered, closed, and proved the
1. Shuttle never had a scientific purpose. The science conducted on the
shuttle has been trivial, so reported the WSJ yesterday 2/3/03.
2. Shuttle failed in its commercial purpose: cheap, frequent, safe transport
of equipment, satellites, personnel into space.
3. Shuttle exists only for its current and potential use as a military
Thus there is no more reason to mourn the Columbia failure than there is to
mourn than the crash of a spy plane, an AWACS plane, or a B52.
If it's science that Jose wishes to preserve and defend, I suggest it would
be more useful, and more important, to defend profeesor Michael L. Dini, of
Texas Tech Univ. who is currenlty under investigation by the US Justice
Dept. for his refusal to recommend for postgraduate study students who do
not accept the validity of evolution. See NYT 2/3/03.
Texas? This is happening in Texas? Where the shuttle went down? You can't
make this up.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism