> this new-fangled "science" requirement for non-science NASA jobs
What, exactly, makes you think a NASA PAO is a non-science job? Would you similarly feel that, say, a USAF PAO need not have the slightest clue about how airplanes work?
> As for "never" using the AP Style manual
Who said "never?"
Anyway, let's take a look at what you posted. There were six uses of the phrade "big bang," with only four uses of "theory" appended onto it. Seems "Big Bang THEORY" is not a requirement. Unless, of course, you can show where in the AP Style Manual it says otherwise.
Well, common sense for one, but then JaneAustin's post #109 listed the "requirements" for PAO.
Would you similarly feel that, say, a USAF PAO need not have the slightest clue about how airplanes work?
I have the "slightest clue" how airplanes work - does not mean I, or the PAO, have to be a mechanical engineer and/or possess advanced avionics degrees to type press releases.
Who said "never?"
You did - in your post #139: "it is almost *never* referred to as the "Big Bang THEORY?"
Anyway, let's take a look at what you posted. There were six uses of the phrade "big bang," with only four uses of "theory" appended onto it.
Exactly - perhaps this is what Mr. Deutsch was attempting to correct.
Seems "Big Bang THEORY" is not a requirement. Unless, of course, you can show where in the AP Style Manual it says otherwise.
I already said I don't have the Manual, but don't you think if it is NOT a requirement, that at least ONE of the many NY Slimes or AP stories on all of this would have pointed that fact out by now?
This guy is equivalent to a USAF PAO who believes that we are building aircraft using technology reverse-engineered from a flying saucer in Area 51... and insists that press documents conform to that notion.