JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

On 20 Oct 2003 03:05:33 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(B. Isaksen) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The UN is hardly a neutral party.

Most convicted prisoners would hardly call the system a neutral party.

I'm having difficulty seeing any analogy whatsoever.

--
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:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:08:30 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


That may be so but the first reaction form the American administration
shows nothing much has changed since 1958.

Really?

What *was* the first reaction to Shenzhou 5 from the American
administration?

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'.

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).

--
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:

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
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

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?

And no, I'm not an employee of that organization...

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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?

Well Sky (aka Fox) did that "exclusive" from the submarine launching cruise
missiles which turned out not to have ever happened and the footage was made
with stock footage.

I don't often watch them as they have far fewer political interviews than
ITN or BBC.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" 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?

Well Sky (aka Fox)

Sky is not aka Fox. They're affiliated, but not the same.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" 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?

Well Sky (aka Fox)

Sky is not aka Fox. They're affiliated, but not the same.

Affliated? They are owned by the same company and have shared resources.

It's like saying BBC News 24 is only affliated to BBC Radio News.

Having spent time watching both of them, there are plenty of times when you
can't see the join. The only plus point for Fox is they tend to do more
interviews than Sky.

In article ,
B. Isaksen wrote:
...entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US oppinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating.

The way not to interfere in the "European conflict" was not to get involved.
Lend-Lease most assuredly constituted getting involved; it made the US a
silent (or not so silent :-)) partner in Britain's war effort.

In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

There have been all sorts of stupid rumors about Pearl Harbor, and even a
few stupid books about it.

The ships were concentrated at Pearl Harbor because it was the *main base*
of the Pacific Fleet. No sinister explanation is required.

Had there been a deliberate intent to offer up the fleet as a target, the
carriers would have been in port (they weren't) and the battleships would
have been at sea (they weren't). As it happened, it worked out well,
because carriers were rapidly becoming far more important... but that was
*not* obvious at the time. Except for a few heretics :-), the general
naval view was that battleships were the main striking force of the navy,
while carriers were useful auxiliaries.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
The way not to interfere in the "European conflict" was not to get involved.
Lend-Lease most assuredly constituted getting involved; it made the US a
silent (or not so silent :-)) partner in Britain's war effort.

Based on the facts as presented here, I rest my case. US was arming.

Sincerley
Bjørn Ove

(B. Isaksen) wrote in message . com...
You need to read a bit more history. The US was visibly arming for war
well before Pearl Harbor. It entered the war in Europe, for all practical
purposes, with the signing of the Lend-Lease treaty in early 1941.

The US opinion did'nt want to interfere in the "European confict",
and only a "leasing deal" kept GB floating. In fact it has been
roumored that the ships were consentrated at PH to make it a tempting
carrot for the Japanese in order to turn public opinion.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

Take two hours and watch "Tora Tora Tora" it's accurate and pretty
even-handed about both American and Japanese problems that led to PH.
Besides, it's a pretty good movie. (Much better than that Ben Affleck
schlock that they put out two years ago.)

(On another note, President Bush will be meeting with PH survivors
Thursday here at the Arizona Memorial...they probably wouldn't be too
excited by conspiracy theories that they were a political carrot.)

Tom Merkle