JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

Scott Lowther wrote:


Blah, blah, blah. Adjust your tinfoil hat, skippy.


LOL

This from the guy who fears an uprising of the Aztecs to boot
non-Americans back to Europe, Africa and Asia.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:47:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


On or about Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:18:07 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:

Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r


Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Something equivalent to Christopher's rock hard cite of a talking head
on BBC?


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:37:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r


Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Something equivalent to Christopher's rock hard cite of a talking head
on BBC?

You mean something that counter's Jorge's "rock hard cite"?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Neelix wrote in
:

Similarly, we keep hearing from US media how cash strapped Russia is
and that it won't be able to meet its commitments to the station. But
if you listen to the BBC, you'll find out that Russia is actually
doing quite well with the current oil boom, and that many western oil
companies are investing in Russia.

And if you listen to Russian media like Itar-TASS, Interfax, and RIA
Novosti, you'll find out that RSC Energia considers the current ISS funding
situation "catastrophic". So whatever money Russia is making in the oil
boom, either RSC Energia isn't seeing any of it, or they're lying about the
money they do get.

Has Russia officially advised ISS partners that it would not be able
to meet its Progress and Soyuz commitments in the next year ?

Depends on how you define "Russia". The Russian government hasn't said
that, but RSC Energia has.

http://www.itar-tass.com/english/allnews/469215.html

"The corporation administration did not focus attention on the issue before
the blast-off and the docking, but has to inform its partners now that
there may be no next launchings of a Progress and other spacecraft to
ensure the ISS programme implementation in 2004."

Other articles he

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=5664706
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd...trow=31&da te
=2003-10-21&do_alert=0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...e=1&u=/ap/2003
1020/ap_on_sc/russia_space

It would be really nice to get true factual information within a full
context instead of editorialised information that need to twist a
story into something sensationalitic in order to be published.

I agree. The spin on most of the Russian articles is "the US must pay!",
even to the point of making up non-existent US funding promises (like the
one in the RIA Novosti article).

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Neelix wrote in
:

Similarly, we keep hearing from US media how cash strapped Russia is
and that it won't be able to meet its commitments to the station. But
if you listen to the BBC, you'll find out that Russia is actually
doing quite well with the current oil boom, and that many western oil
companies are investing in Russia.

And if you listen to Russian media like Itar-TASS, Interfax, and RIA
Novosti, you'll find out that RSC Energia considers the current ISS
funding
situation "catastrophic". So whatever money Russia is making in the oil
boom, either RSC Energia isn't seeing any of it, or they're lying about
the
money they do get.

Well there is the small matter of the total privatisation of the Russian oil
reserves a few years ago as per World Bank instructions. Interestingly a
certain Roman Abravonvitch (new owner of Chelsea FC) seems to have bought
the lot, lock, stock and barrel from the government for around $140m. Not
bad for the world's largest reserves of oil?

I think that limits what the Russian state will see, but makes Roman a very
very rich young Russian with a very wealthy "family".

I'm not entirely sure that's what the World Bank had in mind...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:37:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


So they're slightly better informed than FOX news viewers? g,d,r


Can you point to some explicit equivalent misinformation from Fox
News?

Something equivalent to Christopher's rock hard cite of a talking head
on BBC?


You mean something that counter's Jorge's "rock hard cite"?


After Christopher writes:

"Well on the BBC news, a talking head in the administration popped up
and said bla bla bla then 'it's a threat to National Security'."

Rand Replies:

"Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help)."

You call this very vague account of a BBC news item another reason why
BBC is unreliable. I want to know more specifics about the news item
Christopher was referring to.


OK, I grant you that Jorge's cite proves Christopher's post wasn't vague
and not really a good basis to condemn BBC (if you live on planet Rand).


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On 19 Oct 2003 00:37:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Andrew Gray
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Like Bush said: "Eigther you are with us, or against us".

Bush didn't say that.

When you correct the typo, and reparse it slightly (from "Either you
are" to "You're either", which doesn't AIUI impart any change to the
meaning), he did. Or, at least, he was certainly reported as doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011106-4.html

[press conference w. Chirac that morning]

: Q****Mr. President, you said this morning that you wanted more than
: sympathy or words from other countries.**What nations were you
: specifically talking about, and what do you want from them?
:
: PRESIDENT BUSH: (...) But over time, it's going to be important for
: nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity.*You are
: either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror.*And
: that's going to be part of my speech [on November 10th -ag] at the
: United Nations.

He may not have said "The war is over", but he certainly said this one.

I stand corrected--I hadn't seen that release. I thought the
reference was to the speech in which he said "You're either with us,
or with the terrorists" (which isn't exactly the same thing as with us
or against us).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: