Comments on: NASA’s budget: $15.9 billion?

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:16:55 +0000

There was a claim made earlier in this discussion by Mr. Robins about the sales of the book New Moon Rising. While those claims have been refuted by Mr. Cowing in this same discussion, I have received information from other sources that support Mr. Cowing and show that the book has sold far more copies that Mr. Robins alleges. I regret this discussion got out of hand, but remind all participants that the responsibility for any and all comments left here lies entirely with those writing the comments, and not with myself. I do not moderate the messages here nor am I privy to all the information required to pass judgement on the validity of any claims made in any comment.

Should problems like this continue, I will have no recourse left but to eliminate the comment functionality of this weblog. I am closing the comments for this post. Should you have any questions about this, please email me.

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:27:25 +0000

Mmmmm… 16.2 billion, NASA budget prospects are still looking good.

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:02:44 +0000

Dogsbd:NASA’s budget prospects are looking good!

AJ Mackenzie: let’s see, NASA is getting $300 million less than what the president asked for………..

Well gee, I don’t think the final figure has been decided on yet. And at the time I wrote my comment the final figure certainly had not been decided, irregardless I only made a prediction IE that the “budget prospects are LOOKING good” not a statement of fact that the final budget would be good.

By: NASAWatch.INFO

NASAWatch.INFO — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:48:13 +0000

Jeff:
I apologize. Just to bring some closure to this matter if you don’t mind though please, and to clear my name in Keith’s mind, Jeff could likely confirm to anyone who cares that when I made the initial post I did indeed include my name in the e-mail address. It doesn’t appear though, I now see. But it’s there. And so is the credibility of my highly reliable sources as far as the other assertion made above (the 500 copies sold figure as of November 16th, 2004). If I were wrong, I’d be proven as such but hey…nobody wants to risk violating consumer protection laws by overstating sales, and so the only rebuttal I see is that I supposedly lack sources. Whatever. Of course we know what would happen if I indiscretely disclosed my reliable sources prior to (hopefully) being sued, though. Harassment would ensue. Who needs it. But Keith, PLEASE sue me for libel. Oh how I wish you finally would. The truth’s an absolute defense and society deserves to learn a lot more than what I’ve publicly disclosed thus far about you, which court proceedings would better enable me to disclose. OK Jeff, I will now refrain from further posts since you have kindly allowed me to bring closure to this issue. Happy Thanksgiving to all. And may competitive prizes survive and surprize.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:35:01 +0000

A modest request: please limit your discussions to the topic of this post — which in this case is the FY05 NASA budget, not the sales of a particular book — and avoid personal attacks on other discussion participants. Thank you.

By: AJ Mackenzie

AJ Mackenzie — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:34:24 +0000

NASA’s budget prospects are looking good!

let’s see, NASA is getting $300 million less than what the president asked for, with more money to be spent on shuttle and hubble than in the original budget – all coming out of the exploration program, no doubt. the only folks who can think that’s good are lifetime members of the shuttle fan club. that, and perhaps John Kerry.

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:31:37 +0000

>Highly reliable sources

Like who?

By: Keith Cowing

Keith Cowing — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:06:27 +0000

You don’t have any sources Rich. You are just making this up – and you are afraid to put your name to these fabricated accusations – or cite your ‘source’.

As for using your name – you never do. Go look at your post. Your name does not appear in the email address.

By: NASAWatch.INFO

NASAWatch.INFO — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:58:48 +0000

Cowing:
Prove it. Highly reliable sources in the know about your book’s sales have persuasively demonstrated that you’re lying ONCE AGAIN (just like when you claimed you had exclusive rights to use “NASA Watch” in a domain address prior to being publicly proven wrong yet again while your corruption gets exposed on a regular basis). And if you check in my post above, you’ll see that I DID use my name… in the e-mail address. But what’s a little detail to someone who prefers telling sweeping lies, regardless. I’m sincerely sorry about your sales though. Perhaps if you weren’t so into abusing others, more would have forked over $20 so you could have gotten enough commissions to justify a few of the many hours spent writing the sycophantic book.

By: Keith Cowing

Keith Cowing — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:53:25 +0000

Not exactly sure yet – still debating how much “revision” there will be i.e. what cutoff do we assume in terms of new things to include.