I was NOT being sarcastic in anyway. So you are both BD and BarryD at all times past and present? You like to throw libelous statements around without basis, don't you. I have no cohorts who masquerade around as you...believe me nobody would want to. Though the fact you think we might is interesting. It suggest to me that you feel we have won each argument! Which from my perspective is of coarse true.

I've friends who have worked on Viking and do understand the triple point of water and also understand the mesurement of pressure and temperature were not perfect with the Viking Landers. A good friend Jim Tillman was a key person working on the MET. I've built a 1/1 scale model of it and have a reasonable understanding of how it worked with it's interface and the onboard computer. When have I ever "criticise (you) without basis"? Please show me. As I would be perfectly willing to apologize.

I don't feel compelled to support either Blue Mars or White Mars as the sole method of erosion of features on Mars. Nor do I feel competent enough in geology to critic either White Mars or Blue Mars?

You asked a question of Nick Hoffman which presumed you had a working understanding of both. So asking you to explain how Blue Mars was simpler than White Mars was reasonable. Wasn't it. BTW you didn't exactly do that. You stated liquid CO2 was probable not on the surface of Mars...well no duh! Read White Mars again.

Please explain how you think Blue Mars in anyway makes a manned mission to Mars less likely.

I will make no comment on your tasteless STS-107 statement...

And ...So you wrote a book in the 1990s...your point was? Write any others? Maybe fiction?

--Chris Vancil