On 5/27/05 12:12 AM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
item where it isn't.

See the fallacy.

The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
projects but not this one.

Hope this explains it a bit better.



Scott Peterson

I understood your facetiousness. My "asking you to prove a negative" is
only slightly more absurd or practical than you asking folks to go
line-by-line to prove it.

You are imply either conspiracy or misuse of funds to hurry up and scuttle
USS AMERICA (CV-66). I don't see it that way.

Anybody that has spent any time in the Navy knows that that vast majority of
folks tend to do things by the book and by the numbers. That tendency gets
more pronounced the higher in rank you go.

There are exceptions, of course. I doubt based on the EPA oversight that
would be required that this is one of those exceptions.

--Woody