Well... instead of getting personal, you could try proving me wrong... If its such an extremely easy assumption, it is sure not too hard for you to do that.
Maybe its good to ask NASA there for a start:
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19700022642
Lol, it wasn't personal, that's basically how you sounded. If that made you upset then perhaps you should look inward...
Besides, if you make the claim that they backed off for no good reason, you're the one that has to show directly supporting evidence of that, not the other way around. It's a fallacy to make a claim, yet suggest that some else disproves it.
That link is for information published nearly half a century ago. What's your point?
At any rate, certainly everyone involved was acutely aware that the launch still could have gone off without a hitch. That much should be obvious. However, past experience and lessons learned over time, safety buffers, etc. are all collectively analyzed and implemented for a reason. As you eluded to yourself in an earlier post, launching even in the best of conditions is still a risky and potentially dangerous situation. If there is no real need to press on with the added variables of encroaching storm systems, and someone has the responsibility of making that decision (
and makes it), then you don't. You reset while you can, wait for more favorable conditions, and try again.
If, as a spectator, that bothers you as much as it apparently does, well...