Relax, have a heavy duty joint, man...

Let's go to the moon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljfdg3mPcvY

The most important line of the article: "This article should not be relied upon for any purpose other than for entertainment"

I always enjoy good baseball stories and Yogi Berra quotes.  Bravo

Otherwise, I find "top of the waves" articles like this shallow, misleading, and unproductive.

'admin' pid='28152' datel Wrote:The nefarious thing in this kind of post is actually what isn't said, but implied. The implicit argument here is that since IOC hasn't been able to close a deal, something must be wrong with the resource, it isn't what it's supposed to be. If they make the argument explicit, it's up for testing, and one can burry it with independent resource evaluations, independently produced well data and the fact that no credible party has put forward a credible argument against these.

*********

I agree with your proposition that past failures to get a deal done don't allow one to conclude that IOC won't get a deal done now.  However, conversely, I think that past performance can be a fair tool in analyzing what might happen.  If nothinbg else, in my mind it does speak to "credibility" to some degree. 

I think the motivation for the story is less than pure, and it seems that these SA articles are having little or no effect on PPS these days...but I actually agree with the underlying concept.  IOC has been talking about a deal...and working towards a deal...and in some respects telling us a delay was close...for a very long time...without delivering.  There are lots of supportive explanations (some legitimate and some "rose-colored" for why the delays are understandable, but at some point isn't it fair to grade IOC on a pass-fail system?  Either they've succeeded...or they've just "tried hard".  I'm sick of hearing about how hard they have tried (and are trying).  It's time for them to get it done.