Microgravity parable

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent. And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

My best guess is that there is so much hostility among those who
persist in abusive behavior that a silent majority/minority (?) prefer
to sit out a would be scientific discussion.

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent. And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

Oh BS. Jim and others have never shied away from controversy before. Why
would they do so on THIS issue, but not others?

If anything it's in Jim's interests to elicit controversy as it helps sell
papers. And as a writer, that helps.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

Please provide verifiable references to a post in which Jim Oberg has
expressly stated that he agrees with your position that NASA engineers do
not understand the concept of gravity. For that matter, why not simply ask
publically, right here, if Jim supports you on that specific point?

So if, by assumption

Well, we all know what happens when *you* make an assumption...
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

From Scott Hedrick:
"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

Please provide verifiable references to a post in which Jim Oberg has
expressly stated that he agrees with your position that NASA engineers do
not understand the concept of gravity. For that matter, why not simply ask
publically, right here, if Jim supports you on that specific point?

So if, by assumption

Well, we all know what happens when *you* make an assumption...

I would agree that there's not much point in me making assumptions on
what views other people hold in regards to this topic. And I don't
see much point in me trying to research references toward any
particular person's views.

All of this illustrates the futility of science by popularity contest.

If 6 billion people were to hold the same view while one lone person
holds an incompatible view, those numbers do nothing to prove anything
for either side. It is conceivable that the 6 billion are in error
while one person holds an accurate view.


~ CT

From Scott Hedrick:
"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
Umm, they're not lurking. If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

Please provide verifiable references to a post in which Jim Oberg has
expressly stated that he agrees with your position that NASA engineers do
not understand the concept of gravity. For that matter, why not simply ask
publically, right here, if Jim supports you on that specific point?

So if, by assumption

Well, we all know what happens when *you* make an assumption...

I would agree that there's not much point in me making assumptions on
what views other people hold in regards to this topic. And I don't
see much point in me trying to research references toward any
particular person's views.

All of this illustrates the futility of science by popularity contest.

If 6 billion people were to hold the same view while one lone person
holds an incompatible view, those numbers do nothing to prove anything
for either side. It is conceivable that the 6 billion are in error
while one person holds an accurate view.


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

All of this illustrates the futility of science by popularity contest.

If 6 billion people were to hold the same view while one lone person
holds an incompatible view, those numbers do nothing to prove anything
for either side. It is conceivable that the 6 billion are in error
while one person holds an accurate view.


~ CT

"Stuf4, party of 1, your table is ready. Stuf4, party of 1..."
:-)

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking.

Then where are your supporters? Your detractors have had no qualms
about telling you when you're completely out in left field.

If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent.

Perhaps he's got you killfiled? Perhaps he has more interesting things
to do these days on the eve of a manned Chinese launch. (And please
spare us any tedium regarding Webster's definition of "eve.")

And an obvious follow up is
to ask why others who might agree have remained silent.

Because you're sanctimonious insistence on precise definition of terms
(even when proven wrong; see, e.g., Jorge Frank's post regarding
precession last night) renders you a bit of a boor, if a well-spoken
one. As I said a week or two ago, your schtick is tiresome. Especially
when you drop intimations of "insider" status yet insist on hiding
behind a pseudonym.

My best guess is that there is so much hostility among those who
persist in abusive behavior that a silent majority/minority (?) prefer
to sit out a would be scientific discussion.

Right. It's "abusive" to tell you that you're being pedantic and that
your prevarications are annoying as hell. Now, tell us all again who is
stretching definitions here?

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)


Watch who you're calling a Nazi; Uncle Ashcroft's Patriot Act Though
Police might come tracing your IP address and subpoena your name and
address.

~ CT

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

From Herb Schaltegger:

How ironic that you offer your extrapolation regarding "pretty much
everyone..." while chastising my extrapolation.

This reads as another form of "I'm right/you're wrong", coated with a
heavy tinge of hypocrisy.

And how many posters are publicly supporting your continued games of
semanticism, pedantry, prevarication, equivocation and hand-waving?
None.

But let me guess: the lurkers all support you in email.

Umm, they're not lurking.

Then where are your supporters? Your detractors have had no qualms
about telling you when you're completely out in left field.

All I was saying was that one particular member has a published
webpage that stands in complete agreement with the position I have
been presenting.

(If you really care about my email, I have not gotten any email
support on this. I may have when this topic came up a couple of years
ago, but I don't remember.)

If you've been following the thread
thoroughly you've seen that Jim Oberg's website has a page that fits
in total agreement with what I've been saying here.

So if, by assumption, Jim agrees with the position I have put forward,
one might ask why he has remained silent.

Perhaps he's got you killfiled? Perhaps he has more interesting things
to do these days on the eve of a manned Chinese launch. (And please
spare us any tedium regarding Webster's definition of "eve.")

If anything I post strikes you as tedium, you are free to ignore it.

(3rd Reich lessons learned have previously been provided as to their
application here at sci.space.)


Watch who you're calling a Nazi; Uncle Ashcroft's Patriot Act Though
Police might come tracing your IP address and subpoena your name and
address.

Another excellent example of US government encroachment on the US
Constitution.

But I expect that John Ashcroft is a competent enough attorney to
distinguish between a statement that "lessons were learned in studying
the Nazi's" versus a statement "(whoever) IS a Nazi".


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]

All I was saying was that one particular member has a published
webpage that stands in complete agreement with the position I have
been presenting.

That member does not outline a position of belief that NASA scientists
and astronauts do not understand gravity. So it is not in strict
agreement with your position.

[snip]