Message-ID: <caOoKCC00VcJ4GwE5Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  5 Jun 1990 01:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #492

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 492

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Mt. Graham Hearings (long)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 90 19:47:11 GMT
From: sparkyfs!ads.com!IDA.ORG!pbs!pstinson@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Mt. Graham Hearings (long)

In article <15574@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
> That was a humongous zero content posting.  So much whining about what
> this group or that group did!  Who wants to wade through that stuff to
> get to the meat of the argument?  
I FOUND THE ARTICLE VERY ILLUMINATING AS IT WAS.  IN THIS CASE ITS LENGTH MADE
AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT IN ITSELF.  A EXTREMELY CONDENSED VERSION WOULD HAVE
FAILED TO CONVEY THE EXTENT OF THE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS.
> 
> Speak to the point.  Does the observatory endanger the squirrels or not;
> if not, why not; if so, why is that OK; if you don't know, just say so
> and let us keep looking. 
I BELIEVE THE ARTICLE DID.  THE OBSERVATORY AS APPROVED IN THE COMPROMISE DOES
NOT THREATEN THE SQUIRRELS.
> -- 
SOUNDS LIKE MR. NEFF IS OPPOSED TO THE OBSERVATORY PROJECT, BUT IS UNWILLING TO
SAY SO.  AFTER READING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, I SEE NO REASON WHY CONSTRUCTION
SHOULD NOT PROCEED ON THE MT. GRAHAM OBSERVATORY AT ONCE.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #492
*******************