Lubricant for the job

I am not going to yield you the point. You have yet to make a convincing case.

No, I was taking the opportunity to point out that "Key" was not way off base with his comments.

I suspect you have run out of wiggle room so you revert to suggesting that I am "pathetically infantile" because I disagree with your conclusion. You rely entirely on the assertion that the term "space program" was invalid to apply to any activity engaged in prior to NASA. I do not accept this assertion.

As to your assertion that your apology was an attempt to calm the situation, I have noted your admission of insincerity.

people like you never do.

the "teflon" example makes proves my point... not that you'd admit it.

there you go again! "not way off".

officer: "what speed were you doing?"

roger: 55 mph.

officer: i measured your speed at 65 mph.

roger: i wasn't way off.

lol.

and you'd be wrong but there's nothing wrong with that... there's plenty of people on usenet who can't accept they're wrong.

there's nothing insincere about apologising for the use of ad-hominem or accepting that i'd made a mistake intentions... it's just that i'm man enough to admit it.

get back to your studying, rog, sign up for anger management 101 as well. rofl.

I don't see your point being proven by a long shot. seems you are just trolling. Roger has been around this group for many years and has contributed to help many folks. You are really barking up the wrong tree. get a clue, would ya?

g'day

Let me see, you argue that it was wholely > what is so hard to understand? "teflon" was a product of "the space

So if you are not blowing smoke, trying despratly to justify an inacurite position, then perhaps you can explain why Teflon was invented in 1938?

History of Teflon® The story of Teflon® began April 6, 1938, at DuPont's Jackson Laboratory in New Jersey. DuPont chemist, Dr. Roy J. Plunkett, was working with gases related to Freon® refrigerants, another DuPont product. Upon checking a frozen, compressed sample of tetrafluoroethylene, he and his associates discovered that the sample had polymerized spontaneously into a white, waxy solid to form polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).

From:

Now you are making up a fictional story to put words in my mouth. That is not an effective way to support your position.

Try this, find some authority that will prove that nothing prior to the inception of NASA could reasonably be labled the space program even if it is directly tied to the Atlas rocket.

I would accept being wrong, but I don't feel compeled to do so as you have yet to convince me.

While there is nothing wrong with making an apology, when you recant the apology, you admit to your incenserity.

Why would you imply that I am angry?

The only issue in dispute is if the definition term "space program". I suggest it is reasonable to include within the definition, other efforts in this area that may predate NASA especially the Atlas rocket that was in fact, later used by NASA to launch the Mercury capsule into space. and you suggest that it is too far fetched to include it.

I am not even arguing *my* position, I was defending "Key"'s use of the phrase.

Try again.

sorry, my mistake. a product used by the "space program", invented before the "space program" and therefore not a product of the "space program".

a bit like wd-40, in fact. lol.

it's called an "analogy", rog.

i have said ballistic missiles were the pre-cursor to the "space program". you seem to think they were the "space program". they're not.

go on. say it, rog. "ballistic missiles were not the "space program", they were the pre-cursor to it".

aw heck, you've already admitted it by saying you were "not way off".

i recant it now because you don't deserve it.

you use ad hominem in your daily life? was an unpleasant person.

and you suggest it is "not far off". hardly proof, rog.

of course it's your position.

ok.

Another apology, you are getting better at admitting error, improvement noted.

If that is an analogy it is a piss poor one.

OK you are getting closer. If you will recall, this was my claim:

really off the mark to be jumping down his throat about,

Now consider the context of "Key"'s use of the term "space program". He was pointing out that the creation of product had nothing to do with boats but rather with rockets.

If you strictly construe the "space program" to have started with NASA, then "Key" was incorrect in his use of the word. My claim was that "he was not really off the mark".

Now I shall strengthen my argument.

Look at this:

"Beginning of the Space Program On July 24, 1950, a small rocket was launched from Cape Canaveral marking the true beginning of the space program. Rockets were launched throughout the next decade in an effort to keep up with the Soviet Union's budding space program."

Beginning of the Space Program On July 24, 1950. Sounds like "Key" was on the mark rather than so close only a pathetic infantile lack wit stoned on marijuana would quibble over while insulting the very person who was rather gently urging you to reconsider.

Want to try again? Or are you going to whimper off with your tail between your legs and take some logic and anger management classes?

thank you. you're nearly there too... all you have to do is say that wd-40 is not o product of the "space program".

then why didn't simply deny that assertion?

wow. what a superb example of revisionism.

the first rocket launched was a v2. a nazi rocket built by nazis in america. no wonder you missed that out of your "history" books.

japan would be proud of you.

do you believe that american doctors deliberately withholding treatment for syphilis from black people with syphilis in the '30s was the beginning of your "health program"? rofl.

lol. some school text book is your "authority" is it, rog?

try this...

lol. a v2 rocket is launched and that's the "beginning of the space program". shyah. right. cape canaveral was a ballistic missile testing site until the russians put something into space. your "space program" was more interested in dropping large amounts of explosives on people until the russians put something into space. THAT was the beginning of the "space program".

why not claim that the nazi v1s and v2s dropping on london were the beginning of your "space program"?

"gently urging"? more revisionism. got your sand and mallet ready, "hotshot"?

no need. unless you mean pointing out your revisionism.

mmm... i think i'll stick around, rog, just to see what other guff you come up with.

It was not a spin off from NASA, yet was a product that was developed for the space program in that it was made to address a problem for the areospace industry.

If you are the instructor, you give further validity to the axiom those who cant do teach.

No one is revising anything.

What you don't even read the websites you post as an authority?

The Germans were launching rockets long before the Nazi party was invented. Bit that is irrelovent to the argument. Your sole argument was that the start of the US space program was with the inception of NASA therefore anything predating NASA could not be the included in the definition of space program. The problem with that is you are using your own argument to suport itself. That does not pass muster.

You are going real far afield now.

Were one of these folks your ansestor? That might expalin a lot.

So if the US did not have a space program read this:

In 1952, E. R. Ballinger, leader of the research program at Wright-Patterson, conducted one of the earliest series of centrifuge tests directed expressly toward the problem of g forces in space flight. Ballinger found that 3 g applied transversely would be the ideal takeoff pattern from the physiological standpoint, but he realized that the rocket burning time and velocity for such a pattern would be insufficient to propel a spacecraft out of the atmosphere. Consequently he and his associates subjected men to gradually increasing g loads, building to peaks of 10 g for something over two minutes. Chest pain, shortness of breath, and occasional loss of consciousness were the symptoms of those subjected to the higher g loads. The tests led Ballinger to the conclusion that 8 g represented the acceleration safety limit for a space passenger.

From:

Several points.

First I commend you on inventing a new contraction, i.e. guff = Good stUFF.

Second I shall call your attention to your choice of words:

I hereby evoke Goodwin's Law of Usenet.

See:

i'll get back to you on this one, rog... bit busy at the moment.

Weird thing is, Roger, we seem to use both metric & imperial, even though metric is the official measure. Even youngsters say "a foot or a mile long", or "it weighs a ton", etc etc. About 50% of locksmiths still use the imperial system in the trade (myself included).

keep spinning, rog... you'll believe yourself eventually. what was it you said? oh yes.

"I am not even arguing *my* position, I was defending "Key"'s use of the phrase."

so if you don't agree with 'key, what _is_ your position.

don't blame me if you don't know what an analogy is and please, use some punctuation, rog... add grammar 101 to your syllabus. lol

the phrase "a small rocket" replacing the _fact_ "a nazi rocket built by nazis" isn't revision? you're not a politician, are you?

yes, i do.

present proof.

correct. before that, any rocket or ballistic missile was developed to drop large amounts of explosives on people, not put things/people in space. when russia achieved that goal, america diverted the missile program to another purpose.

keep spinning, rog.

you obviously don't read/see/listen to news outside of your narrow borders.

check the grammar on that last sentence, rog. does your brain hurt?

er... high altitude?

thank you but where i live, it means utter idiocy.

i didn't say you were a nazi, rog... read that law again and pay more attention in your english lessons.

you claimed the rockets that were launched from cape canaveral were the beginning of the space industry. i say they were not. the rockets first launched from cape canaveral were developed to drop a huge amount of explosives on people. you say they were developed to put people in space. i beg to differ and you'd make a good politician.

as an aside, you said that 'key's position wasn't your position... you were just defending him.

what's your position on wd-40 coming from the space program?

(i expect you to ignore this question)