The actual story isn’t quite that bad, but jeez, this is getting kind of embarassing. I can’t see Obama keeping this guy.

Well, technically, it probably is. If we pour enough time and money into it, we can probably get something vaguely resembling it to fly. The issue is whether it’s viable economically and politically.

Gee, Mark, was it some other Mark Whittington who wrote this?

In something akin to God coming down from the mountain, Neil Armstrong, who ordinarily does not speak in public, has weighed in on the transition controversy at NASA.

Physician, heal thyself.

How about this :

Neil Armstrong certainly is entitled to his opinions and beliefs. Apparently Neil Armstrong believes that Constellation is a viable launch vehicle architecture.

I am entitled to my opinions and beliefs as well. I believe Neil Armstrong’s opinions and beliefs are idiot. The fact that Neil Armstrong was the first person to land an spacecraft on the moon and walk on its surface in no way enters into my empirical analysis of his idiotic opinions and beliefs.

If he did that, he’d have to shut down his web site, because he really is capable of little else.

Evidence?

Here’s what I actually wrote:

“It would be nice if someone educated Griffin, Armstrong, Shank… on what it is that Presidential transition teams actually can and cannot do.”

Just because Armstrong doesn’t know the purpose of Presidential transition teams doesn’t mean that he’s an “out of touch fuddy duddy” and it certainly doesn’t mean that he has “delusions of God hood [sic]”. It just means that he’s lacking in knowledge about Presidential transition teams. I’m also lacking in knowledge about a lot of things, too, but that doesn’t mean that I’m “out of touch”, that I’m a “fuddy duddy”, or that I have delusions of God hood [sic]”.

You may think that Armstrong is an “out of touch fuddy duddy with delusions of God hood [sic]” after reading his op-ed, but it’s certainly not what I wrote. “Out of touch fuddy duddy with delusions of God hood [sic]” are your words, not mine.

“…Armstrong’s op-ed (and Griffin’s argument with Garver and Shank’s subsequent statements to Florida Today) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about what transition teams can and cannot do.”

Here, I referred to Armstrong’s op-ed, not Armstrong himself. Again, just because an op-ed doesn’t demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of Presidential transition teams doesn’t mean that its author is an “out of touch fuddy duddy”, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the author has “delusions of God hood [sic]”. Again, that may be what you think of Armstrong after reading his editorial, but it’s certainly not what I wrote. “Out of touch fuddy duddy with delusions of God hood [sic]” are your words, not mine.

“Armstrong is a retired astronaut, not a congressman. Although certainly respected, the incoming Administration doesn’t owe or have to work with him.”

Here, I’m just stating facts. Moreover, I even state that Armstrong is “respected”. I have no idea how one gets “out of touch fuddy duddy” or “delusions of God hood [sic]” out of that.

“Not when Armstrong’s argument (or whoever wrote that op-ed) is a useless red herring. It’s a waste of Armstrong’s fame and position in history to argue that transition teams shouldn’t make decisions when transitions teams have no authority to make decisions in the first place.”

Again, here I referred to Armstrong’s op-ed, not Armstrong himself. And just because an op-ed makes a useless, red-herring argument doesn’t mean that its author is an “out of touch fuddy duddy”, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the author has “delusions of God hood [sic]”. Again, that may be what you think of Armstrong after reading his editorial, but it’s certainly not what I wrote. “Out of touch fuddy duddy with delusions of God hood [sic]” are your words, not mine.

In summary, I repeatedly referred to the argument in Armstrong’s op-ed, not Armstrong himself, and even referred to Armstrong as “respected”. Moreover, I never used the words “out of touch fuddy duddy with delusions of God hood [sic]” or anything like them. You’re the one characterizing the first man on the Moon with those names and adjectives, not me.

Finally, if you can’t participate in a debate without putting words in other posters’ mouths, then please keep your comments to yourself. It’s a waste of other posters’ time to have to correct false statements originating from you that they never made.

Thank you…