[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: list policy poll

To: "Gene Marlin" <rmarlin@network-one.com>, <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: list policy poll
From: "Phil Bagnall" <phil@ticetboo.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:42:17 +0100
Old-X-Envelope-To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Reply-To: "Phil Bagnall" <phil@ticetboo.demon.co.uk>
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Resent-Message-ID: <UhFhnB.A.Jj.shgZ3@mu.pair.com>
Resent-Sender: meteorite-list-request@meteoritecentral.com




>NASA bashing and pseudoscience, do we support these on our list while at
the
>same time we have NASA personnel on this list constantly keeping us
informed
>of what goes on "out there"?


Certainly pseudoscience should play no part in this list, and nor should
unwarranted criticism of NASA. However, I think it would be wrong to regard
NASA as being beyond criticism. The Agency has made mistakes in the past,
and some of their PR people have been.....well, let's just say a little
enthusiastic. Healthy criticism provides the Agency with feedback on how
those on the outside view the work of those on the inside. Unjustified
criticism - usually by people who know little about the Agency and how
science works - is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Phil Bagnall
www.ticetboo.demon.co.uk





----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------

Follow-Ups:

NASA / CME / (probably not a) Coverup

From: "P.Craig" <peric@extremezone.com>

Prev by Date: Sale: New impactite find, ect...
Next by Date: Re: list policy poll
Prev by thread: Re: list policy poll
Next by thread: NASA / CME / (probably not a) Coverup
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread