Quote:
|
I kinda phased out of the article after here.
|
I don't know how to say this politely so I will just say it simply. You wasted your time by not reading the article.
The first series of points that you rebutted were prefaced with:
"Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands."
The point of taking such a strange point of view (archeologists) is to show that the design is a confused one, a bit like the x86 processor architecture. Saying "hindsight is 20-20" is not an excuse because we now have over 20 years of hindsight to work with. The overall point of the article is: why are we still using it?
You missed the meat of the article and the footnotes, a few of which make your points invalid.