MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
I answered your questions several times.

No, you didn't answer the question even once. I guess you are a troll after
all.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
I answered your questions several times.

No, you didn't answer the question even once.

How convenient of you to claim that after you snipped my message, Peter.

I guess you are a troll after all.

Your guess at name calling is in correct.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:15:48 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
why you are NOT a pedophile.

Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
to complaints?

And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner [sic] change the conversation
to me?

You seem incapable of understanding how the false accusation implicit
in the Time ad is capable of provoking indignation in the one accused,
so I thought I'd provide you with some first hand experience. Don't
you want to "join the conversation" on that subject? :=) Now you
know how it feels. If you had been a pilot, I wouldn't have had to
resort to that.

You seem preoccupied with attacking me,

I only attack your (deliberate?) lack of insight into the self serving
use of an erroneous premise (to the detriment of GA in the eyes of the
lay public) to attract subscribers in the Time ad. It was wrong, and
when called on it, Time vowed to pull the ad. Time could see their
error; why can't you?

but have little defense to offer to explain why GA is not a threat

You seemed knowledgable enough to know why a C-172 impacting a
condensation tower posed no threat. I didn't realize that you needed
to have it explained to you.

and why a general aviation plane could not be used to get by the national guard force
on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.

Engineering studies have shown that an airliner, let alone a GA
aircraft, impacting a nuclear containment structure will not
successfully compromise it. A cooling tower contains no radioactive
material, only hot water. Time's implied premise was bogus, and your
failure to understand that, while disappointing, does prove to me that
the lay public could be similarly duped into similar erroneous
conclusions.

Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy.

How is that obvious? Have you any impartial information to support
such an allegation? Couldn't they have just as easily have pulled the
ad in chagrin to save their public embarrassment over such an ill
conceived ad.

[...]

Where were the actual damages? If there is a lawsuit, what should damages be
set for, and how should they be quantified?

The damages are the same as they are in any case of defamatory
representation that unjustly conveys an erroneously unfavorable
impression (libel).

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:15:48 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
why you are NOT a pedophile.

Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
to complaints?

And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner [sic] change the conversation
to me?

You seem incapable of understanding how the false accusation implicit
in the Time ad is capable of provoking indignation in the one accused,
so I thought I'd provide you with some first hand experience. Don't
you want to "join the conversation" on that subject? :=) Now you
know how it feels. If you had been a pilot, I wouldn't have had to
resort to that.

Your comments don't make sense, and your "if you had been a pilot" nonsense is laughable.
I've been a pilot for over 14 years now, with about 1,700 hours.



You seem preoccupied with attacking me,

I only attack your (deliberate?) lack of insight

I provided plenty of insight. Now your "insight" is telling me that I'm no longer a pilot
too.

into the self serving
use of an erroneous premise (to the detriment of GA in the eyes of the
lay public) to attract subscribers in the Time ad. It was wrong, and
when called on it, Time vowed to pull the ad.

Yeah, they "vowed to pull" something that was extremely unlikely to run any longer than their
other "join the conversation" ads, that is a week or two.

Time could see their
error; why can't you?

Time didn't say they found any errors in their ad.



but have little defense to offer to explain why GA is not a threat

You seemed knowledgable enough to know why a C-172 impacting a
condensation tower posed no threat. I didn't realize that you needed
to have it explained to you.

You are making more baseless charges about me. To quote myself from an earlier post, "Even
if somebody hit the towers and miraculously knocked one down instead of bouncing off it, the
only thing that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam,
and liquid water."



and why a general aviation plane could not be used to get by the national guard force
on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.

Engineering studies have shown that an airliner, let alone a GA
aircraft, impacting a nuclear containment structure will not
successfully compromise it.

That would of course depend on the particular plant, which is why some plants were built
stronger than others. GPU's Three Mile Island plant in Middletown, for example, had its
containment design strengthened just before construction to withstand a Boeing 727. The plant
in the aforementioned photo was designed ot withstand the impact of a light jet. By the way,
what 'engineering studies' are you using? A citation would be helpful.

Furthemore, a lot of a nuclear plant is not within the containment structure.

A cooling tower contains no radioactive
material, only hot water.

That's right.

Time's implied premise was bogus,

That's right.

and your
failure to understand that,

I not only understand that, but clearly pointed that out earlier.
I said earlier, to wit,

"I'm not sure how the towers is relevant to nuclear safety. The only
thing in those towers is water vapor. Even if somebody hit the towers
and miraculously knocked one down instead of bouncing off it, the only
thing that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a
cloud of dust, steam, and liquid water. The reactor would shut down,
although the particular reactors at that plant may be run for 30 days
without the benefit of a cooling tower or even raising the river
temperature."

while disappointing, does prove to me that
the lay public could be similarly duped into similar erroneous
conclusions.

Your "proof" is that because I pointed out that the only thing in those towers is water vapor
etc, confirms the 'lay public could be similarly duped into......knowing that 'the only thing
that would happen would be a big mess of cement blocks and a cloud of dust, steam, and liquid
water.'

Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy.

How is that obvious?

Becuase they said that they pulled it after being asked, or demanded.

Have you any impartial information to support
such an allegation? Couldn't they have just as easily have pulled the
ad in chagrin to save their public embarrassment over such an ill
conceived ad.

Why do you think this ad was planned to run any longer than any of the other similar ads they
ran for just an issue or two? You ask for "impartial information" on my part but are
unwilling to supply same.



[...]

Where were the actual damages? If there is a lawsuit, what should damages be
set for, and how should they be quantified?

The damages are the same as they are in any case of defamatory
representation that unjustly conveys an erroneously unfavorable
impression (libel).

Huh? Damages are set individually for every (actual) case. Good luck finding a lawyer to take
this non-case.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:04:17 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Time's implied premise was bogus,

That's right.

I knew we could agree. :=)