Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!ut-sally!brian
From: brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Shuttle disaster comments/articles/spec. on the net
Message-ID: <4113@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 02:30:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.4113
Posted: Tue Feb  4 02:30:45 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 02:27:46 EST
References: <883@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 50

In article <883@decwrl.DEC.COM>, earle@oblio.DEC writes:
> 
> I agree with the person who was talking about the speculation on the net.  I
> was ready to read some interesting IN DEPTH notices from PEOPLE IN THE KNOW 
> who work with NASA as contractors or for NASA.  Those have been few and far
> between (probably because they were off researching the problem).
     Probably because most of them aren't on the net.  And if they are/were,
the management and NASA would probably really frown on premature comments
(official or unofficial) from its employees.
     
> Don't most
> of the speculators realize that they will mostly be proved wrong?
> You 'speculators' should realize that in a week things TOTALLY unknown to you
> will change things.
> I wouldn't dare comment on it because I will mostly
> likely be embarrased, as those of you are already, by speculating on...
     Yes, the speculators realize they may be wrong.  When they are wrong,
they are probably not grievously embarrased.  I personally am not afraid of
making mistakes.  I make them all the time.

> ...you have NO data from the mission itself. ...
     Here's where I sort of agree with you.
     Yes, the initial "Challenger exploded" messages got old.  These should
have been posted with a local distribution to ensure timeliness.
     I enjoyed the messages with high information content.  All two or
three of them.
     I disliked the messages with no information content.  All two or three
of them.  (the ones concerning net.sf-lovers comes to mind.  So does this one.)
     But, I was not offended by the conjectural messages.  I like to see
discussions of this sort.  I thought most were quite intelligent and plausible.

     I guess it comes down to having a newsgroup consisting of only pure
proven fact vs. one that supports discussions.  (If you take the former option
net.columbia will probably be combined with net.space, since the net traffic
will be so low.  We can go ahead and get rid of net.religion and net.ai while
we're purging the net.)
     Finally, I hope this nears the end of the discussion.  Not that I want to
have the last word, but that net.columbia is for the space shuttle, not for
usenet theory.


Brian H. Powell
		UUCP:	{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!brian
		ARPA:	brian@sally.UTEXAS.EDU

		 U.S. Mail:		 Southwestern Bell
		P.O. Box 5899		345-0932
		Austin, TX 78763-5899
					 AT&T
					(512) 345-0932