Sometimes in the haste of answering, the obvious is missed. In this case, for the comments I made I did make a major error.
I certainly do not mean that lightning was the cause.
The correct statement was to read:
"At this point, until other evidence is available, lightning or a stray flash of electron discharges should not be "blamed" for the disaster."
Peter, thank you for catching the mistake.
George John Drobnock
From: "Peter Brunone" <peter@b...>
Date: Sat Feb 8, 2003 9:34 pm
From: "Peter Brunone" <peter@b...>
Date: Sat Feb 8, 2003 9:34 pm
Subject: RE: 14. (meteorobs) Fw: Lightning as the initiator
|At this point, until other evidence
is available, light or stray flash
|of electron discharges should be
"blamed" for the disaster.
Did you mean to add a "not" in there?
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-meteorobs@a...
[mailto:owner-meteorobs@a...]On
|Behalf Of drobnock
|Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:06
PM
|To: meteorobs@a...
|Subject: 14. (meteorobs) Fw:
Lightning as the initiator
The archive and Web site for our list
is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
|At this point, until other evidence
is available, light or stray flash
|of electron discharges should be
"blamed" for the disaster.
Did you mean to add a "not" in there?
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-meteorobs@a...
[mailto:owner-meteorobs@a...]On
|Behalf Of drobnock
|Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:06
PM
|To: meteorobs@a...
|Subject: 14. (meteorobs) Fw:
Lightning as the initiator
The archive and Web site for our list
is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html