Houston, You Have a Problem

wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.


I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.


I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.

Don't worry Derek, I'm sure all the lurkers support him. :-)


Seriously, Danny, I have not read your book. When I get a chance I may.
However, the problem is, based on your other comments here, I, like others
have already formed opinions in regards to you and your credibility.
Whether your book can chance that remains to be seen.

As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic). There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can post that proves
your story. For the completely cynical, all the documentation you're
posting could be made up. That's the worse case scenario in a sense. I'm
not accusing you of that, but simply pointing out that your documentation
can't by itself prove anything since it can't be independently corrobarated.
It can only suggest and imply.

Again, I repeat my suggestion, if you really truly believe you have a case,
get an investigative writer to help you and to do some of their own
research.

In addition, unfortunately for your case, the excerpts you've posted
previously do seem to indicate a "I TOLD THEM and no one listened." (and
no, I'm not referring to the meetings and lock you're referring to.) Which
may be completely true, or may be your intepretation of events.

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.




--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Wow, Greg. For a person who typically does a decent job with post
structure, there were enough glaring mistakes in your reply to make me
wonder whether you did it intentionally. Ha!

chance = change
corrallary = corollary
corrobarated = corroborated
worse = worst
intepretation = interpretation
mind = mine


~ CT


From Greg Moo
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.

Don't worry Derek, I'm sure all the lurkers support him. :-)

Seriously, Danny, I have not read your book. When I get a chance I may.
However, the problem is, based on your other comments here, I, like others
have already formed opinions in regards to you and your credibility.
Whether your book can chance that remains to be seen.

As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic). There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can post that proves
your story. For the completely cynical, all the documentation you're
posting could be made up. That's the worse case scenario in a sense. I'm
not accusing you of that, but simply pointing out that your documentation
can't by itself prove anything since it can't be independently corrobarated.
It can only suggest and imply.

Again, I repeat my suggestion, if you really truly believe you have a case,
get an investigative writer to help you and to do some of their own
research.

In addition, unfortunately for your case, the excerpts you've posted
previously do seem to indicate a "I TOLD THEM and no one listened." (and
no, I'm not referring to the meetings and lock you're referring to.) Which
may be completely true, or may be your intepretation of events.

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.

--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote in message
ups.com...
Wow, Greg. For a person who typically does a decent job with post
structure, there were enough glaring mistakes in your reply to make me
wonder whether you did it intentionally. Ha!

chance = change
corrallary = corollary
corrobarated = corroborated
worse = worst
intepretation = interpretation
mind = mine


Wow, yeah that is bad. I guess it proves the rule. :-)



~ CT


From Greg Moo
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

...

wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:29 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I take this as a sign my story, complete with documentation is
strong. They can't pick on the story, so they pick on the typos and
such.

ROTFLMAO.

Don't worry Derek, I'm sure all the lurkers support him. :-)

Seriously, Danny, I have not read your book. When I get a chance I may.
However, the problem is, based on your other comments here, I, like
others
have already formed opinions in regards to you and your credibility.
Whether your book can chance that remains to be seen.

As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic).
There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling
or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.

Also, whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can post that
proves
your story. For the completely cynical, all the documentation you're
posting could be made up. That's the worse case scenario in a sense.
I'm
not accusing you of that, but simply pointing out that your documentation
can't by itself prove anything since it can't be independently
corrobarated.
It can only suggest and imply.

Again, I repeat my suggestion, if you really truly believe you have a
case,
get an investigative writer to help you and to do some of their own
research.

In addition, unfortunately for your case, the excerpts you've posted
previously do seem to indicate a "I TOLD THEM and no one listened." (and
no, I'm not referring to the meetings and lock you're referring to.)
Which
may be completely true, or may be your intepretation of events.

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between
what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.

--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jul 22, 8:50 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
snip
As for nitpicking the spelling, some of it is certainly in good humor.
Especially my comment about you wanting to be given a brake (sic). There's
a general rule on usenet that as soon as you critique someone's spelling or
grammar a similar mistake will be found in your own post. I think you've
created a corrallary of that rule that as soon as you try to defend a
spelling or grammar mistake of your own, you'll make another.


Yes, I did find my "Give me a break" post ironic.
snip

Hell, I have an ex-employee that I'm sure believes that I think he's
incompetent and didn't appreciate his work. The reality, I think he was
capable of great work and did appreciate much of his effort. But his
approach wasn't mind and he never could fully understand why we butted
heads. So, the reality is, the 'truth' is probably somewhere between what
he thinks and what I think. So it the case in your story.


Making a statement to local authorities I was "terrorizing all of NASA
by threatening to come to their home and injure them if they don't all
resign". Then being part of a local judge refusing to give me a
hearing is hardly in the same category you are talking about here.
There was no misunderstanding on my part. NASA officials performed
these acts and they left a document trail.

I do understand your concern that I might be in the middle of a big
misunderstanding and I thank you for not throwing insults in my
direction as you point this fact out. A great deal of what I write
about in my book could be in this category, but not the abuse of power
I describe above.

Danny Deger

B A R R Y wrote:


I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I've known brilliant programmers and engineers who typed like crap,
making many spelling errors in a conversational email. I've also met
superior managers who could barely retrieve email, and needed printed
reports delivered to their desks. All of these examples could do
what they really needed to do, very, very well.

If you want to nitpick the guy's message, fine... But he qualified to
fly F-4's, did serious work for an important defense contractor, and
worked as a NASA engineer. I work with a guy who commanded two
nuclear ICBM subs, has undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics,
nuclear engineering (Naval Academy), and math, and designed towed
arrays as a civilian. I need a "decoder ring" to read his email!

One can always find exceptions that prove the rule.

We nitpick his message because his failures in communication here to
point out the failures in the larger message he's trying to sell.
It's all part of the same pattern.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jul 21, 8:51 pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
snip

We nitpick his message because his failures in communication here to
point out the failures in the larger message he's trying to sell.
It's all part of the same pattern.

OK. I used the word "brake" instead of "break" and left the "h" out
of "physics" and this points out a failure in the larger message of
NASA lying to local officials to have me locked up and working with a
local judge to have my due process denied??? I can't believe I just
read this.

I will repeat my earlier response -- WHATEVER!!! (picture 12 year old
daughter rolling her eyes into her head.)

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

"Maxwell" wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

And yet spelling errors are often (it seems) immediately recognizd when
they are read, so there appears to be something more involved.

(So _was_ my spelling error immediately obvious?)

"Jim Logajan" wrote:.
"Maxwell" wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

I don't know why some feel the need to pick on spelling and grammar.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

And yet spelling errors are often (it seems) immediately recognizd when
they are read, so there appears to be something more involved.

(So _was_ my spelling error immediately obvious?)

Would all you posters taking Deger on please remove alt.fiction.original
from the header. We are being swamped by the feeding frenzy.

Thank you.

Anopheles