William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:46:55 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:53:23 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:39:45 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:19:56 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


I'm sorry, I made the mistake of trying to make sense of something you've said. Obviously that is a fools errand.


I'm sorry you're crazy as a sack of rats,

I'm not that's the point. You are.


Rubber/glue/waaaaaa

You're being childish.


There you go projecting again.

You do that not me.


There you go projecting again.

You have Ganser's Syndrome definitely! lol.


There you go projecting again definitely! lol.








you MookJacking asshole.

I don't know what that means. Do you?


You are apparently the only one here who doesn't know what it means.

You're the one engaging in personal attacks.


How do you know it's a personal attack if you don't know what it
means?

'It' means personal attacks by you. Your name calling and general demeanour is an attack on me personally. That's obvious to anyone reading your tripe, regardless of whatever words the voices in your head tell you to make up.


So you don't know what it means but it's obviously a personal attack?

Your Ganser's Syndrome is flaring up. When I say I don't know what you mean by the pronoun 'it' in the previous sentence, its not the same as saying I don't know whatever it refers to. Got it? lol. You sound a lot like Bill Clinton explaining Monica Lewinski's relationship to him. "It depends on what the meaning of is, is!" hahaha..


Your dementia is flaring up. You insist you don't know what what I'm
saying means but then assert you know what it means. Got it? lol.
You sound a lot like Hillary Clinton explaining Monica Lewinski's
relationship with Bill. "It's all a (half) vast right wing
conspiracy!" hahaha..




Do you frequently make absolute statements about things that
you do not understand?

No. I never do, you moron.


You just did.

No, you THINK I did, you were wrong. You have trouble with that concept given your mental disorder.


No, you DID, you are now in denial. You have trouble with reality
given your mental disorder.




Well, yes, you do.

Not really.


Yes really.


No, you're the one making stuff up. Saying for example that the Russians pushed the Americans into the OST in 1967 just because it sounded right to the voices in your head. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the State Department website on the OST knows that the US was pushing Russia to sign an OST since 1957 when DIA indicated they were ready to launch a satellite into orbit!


I'll just note that you're once again claiming I said things that I
never said just because you're a delusional whackadoo. Anyone who
takes the trouble to understand the State Department website on the
OST knows that all OSTs are not created equal and that what the US was
looking for was demilitarization of space and not "must be used for
the benefit of all nations" communist crap!








Rational people read 'I think we should withdraw' in the context of a UN treaty, as a withdrawal of the USA from the UN.


Nonsense.

Lots of people feel that the US should withdraw from the UN. Aren't you one of them? When you say "I think we should withdraw?"


I know complete sentences are hard for you, but you really should
include the entire quote, which was "I think we should withdraw from
the Outer Space Treaty".

You said "I think we should withdraw" period.


And what were we talking about, dip****?


The United Nations and the treaties it saddles its member states with.


Wrong.

If the US were to withdraw from a UN treaty they used significant muscle to get everyone to sign, that would seriously undermine the organisation.


The second half of your first clause above is a lie. The second
clause is feckless speculation.


We were talking about one specific treaty, the Outer Space
Treaty,

That's right. I see your understanding of geopolitics is as profoundly lacking as all other topics you discuss here.


Non sequitur by you just to get in a personal insult. It is, of
course, typical of you. But at least now you admit that the subject
was the OST (not the UN) so "withdraw from it" would leave the pronoun
'it' referring to the OST and not the UN.


and nobody had mentioned the United Nations until you
MookJacked the thread.

The OST is a United Nations treaty. Its a treaty proposed and championed by the USA in order to control and constrain the USSR geopolitically since they were way ahead of the USA in space transport technology at the time is was proposed. The USSR refused to sign any such treaty until it was clear that the USA had pulled ahead of the USSR, and then the treaty served to constrain USA in space.


No. It was originally a treaty proposed to constrain the USSR
MILITARILY. The USSR refused to consider it unless it was tied to
IRBM deployment by the US.


The treaty is inappropriate to economic development of off-world resources by private interests in the twenty-first century.


Got nothing to do with the century. A lot of us were pointing that
out back when it was first up for ratification.


It is a relic of the Cold War.


Wrong. It is a product of all the non-space nations wanting to be
parasites.


As is the UN generally. The UN Law of the Sea is a similar relic, inappropriate to the commercial development of ocean resources using twenty-first century technology. As is the Antarctic Treaty, from the UN for the same reasons. How many treaties do we have to abrogate before we say the UN itself doesn't serve US interests going forward?


You're the only one talking about those other treaties.


If you said the UN is great but the OST needs to be dropped, then you should have said so ...


Why? You have agreed we were not talking about the UN. So why would
I say it was or was not "great"? It's irrelevant to my views on the
OST.


... since it is a foolish statement in the context of the treaty and the UN itself.


Hogwash. Your position is rather like claiming that if I disagree
with a US Supreme Court decision that I am advocating abolishing the
Supreme Court. Only people with serious delusional syndromes get
caught up in such absolutist claptrap.


I assumed you understood WHY the OST was bad. I see I was wrong, since you understand NOTHING afaict.


What a delusional **** can tell is pretty irrelevant to reality, so I
find it difficult to care about the world "as far as Mookie can tell".


I know it's hard for you,

You are the one constantly making errors, and project them on to me. I mean, I routinely say things you cannot comprehend because you are an idiot. Then, you routinely attack me, because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! lol. Its funny really.


You're projecting again.

No, you're the one who said that Russia promoted the OST while the USA resisted it, because the voices in your head told you that seemed right! lol. You didn't take the trouble to find out what the facts were, because in your gut that didn't feel right. Ganser's Syndrome dude. Look it up. You have it.


You're lying again. Hillary Clinton Syndrome dude. Look it up. You
have it.

Bored now. Start your own thread to thump your tub, MookJacking
asshole.

remaining Mook**** elided unread


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine