|
|
Is there a web site that I can find out about a lawyer and how he is
rated?We are not happy with this person at all and I wonder if he is
quailified as we thought he was. Thank you for your help
|
|
|
>> I stopped the car at the checkpoint to look for intoxicated drivers. The
>> sun or the flashlight only provide me with light to see what's in plain
>> view; they don't give me cause to stop a car.
>>
>
> But you had no cause to think the people y
|
|
|
Scott Lowther wrote:
> ghost@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Then you know
<snip>
> that the chunk comes off well after the separation of the SRBs from
> the ET.
You've shown *no* proof of that. As far as I know at this point, a
piece flying off the PAR
|
|
|
scottlowtherAT@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
>
> In this image, you can see the SRB at the side of the frame shortly
> after liftoff:
> http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/123636main_001_post_mmt_072605.jpg
>
> In this frame, you can see the Chunk fl
|
|
|
> In that case, you should have absolutely no problem providing a
permanent link to this video
Indeed so. It's on a videotape I've loaned toa co-=worker. I've no
intention of taping over it; it is theus, to a limitted definition of
the term, "perma
|
|
|
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in news:11ei507icsrn244
@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> Michael Gardner wrote:
>
>>as usual, he's chanting "its the SRB, ITS THE SRB" again. There are
>>other pictures showing in detail, from the side where
|
|
|
Ghost wrote:
lexcorp@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > You keep talking about "the video," but you consistently refuse to
> > provide a link to same.
>
> It's called a "VCR." NASA TV broadcast the ET cam footage, along with
> numerous other cameras, Tuesday
|
|
|
Damon Hill wrote:
>
> Conventional knowledge is always wrong; the kook is always right.
<< begin 1986, after Challenger explosion >>
DR. LITTLES: Well, I for one, and I'm not an expert and that is why I
asked my experts to go off and put together
|
|
|
> You keep talking about "the video," but you consistently refuse to
provide a link to same.
It's called a "VCR." NASA TV broadcast the ET cam footage, along with
numerous other cameras, Tuesday after the launch.
> You keep referring to "size and
|
|
|
scottlowtherAT@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> > As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
> and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."
>
> I almost forgot to mention: when you watch the video, you can
|
|
|
> As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."
I almost forgot to mention: when you watch the video, you can see the
chunk break off of the ET... several seconds
|
|
|
> As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."
Yes, it does. It's quite clear.
> If you think more dynamic video does show such, then post a link to it.
Lit
|
|
|
Michael Gardner wrote:
>as usual, he's chanting "its the SRB, ITS THE SRB" again. There are
>other pictures showing in detail, from the side where the foam came off
>- there is not ambiguity.
>
No...on Challenger, NASA said it was the SRB;
|
|
|
In article <1122561380.461186.321870@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Path:
> news.ks.uiuc.edu!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.c
> om!not-for-mail
> From: "ghost@gmail.c
|
|
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> Behold the contrarian. :-)
I call them as I see them, a privilege to which I'm entitled.
Let others see them as NASA calls them. NASA's quagmire is stark
evidence of how little backbone, detailed analysis, and independen
|
|
|
scottlowtherAT@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> > If (like you) he can't see the recovered SRB, why has he now
> leapt so fast to NASA's "foam" conclusion?
>
> 1: Because the video clearly shows the foam breaking off the ET, and
> the post-separation ph
|
|
|
"ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122556438.659134.271680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:23:29 -0500, Reed Snellenberger wrote
>> (in article <Xns969F69B55486Brsnel
|
|
|
> Nog wrote:
> > "ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1122556438.659134.271680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or t
|
|
|
> If (like you) he can't see the recovered SRB, why has he now
leapt so fast to NASA's "foam" conclusion?
1: Because the video clearly shows the foam breaking off the ET, and
the post-separation photos clearly show the hole where the foam was, in
th
|
|
|
Nog wrote:
> "ghost@gmail.com" <john.maxson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122556438.659134.271680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, whether this piece of whatever it was came from the ET or the SRB
> >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:23:29 -0500, Reed Snellenberger wrote
> (in article <Xns969F69B55486Brsnellenbergerhousto@24.93.43.121>):
>
> > Watching the replay from the ET-cam, I thought I saw some debris that
> > passed under th
|
|
|
> there is no "city" court, only county courts.
I reside in WA state and the city here has a municipal court
besides the county.
>
> As far as whether the judgment the commissioner made was in error, you
> would
> have to appeal that judgment f
|
|
|
"jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote in message
news:czQFe.41159$gL1.15639@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Mark2101" <Markss2101@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:PnxFe.158597$go.108169@fed1read05...
> >
> > "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote in message
> >
|
|
|
bckwrds" <bckwrds@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:42e7adff$0$14458$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net...
Can someone explain exactly what all is involved in serving
subpoena's?
One assumes that you are serving a subpoena on a non-party, otherwise a
|
|
|
there is no "city" court, only county courts.
As far as whether the judgment the commissioner made was in error, you would
have to appeal that judgment first before pursuing a new action, otherwise
it would be res judicata or collateral estoppel (iss
|
|
|
US MO: Kahoka Police Chief Arrested
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1184/a05.html
Newshawk: Beth
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Mon, 25 Jul 2005
Source: Daily Gate City (IA)
Copyright: 2005 Daily Gate City
Contact: gatecity@interl.net
Website: http
|
|
