Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Discuss Space Policy

On 24 Feb, 17:20, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:04 am, Ian Parker wrote:

I think if I recall the instant I ask why Americans could win Nobel
Prizes but could not get a reasonable foriegn policy. A standard of
innorance is tolerated in public affairs which would not be tolerated
anywhere else.

Quite honestly I now know why America is such gits in the public
domain. It is people like you who insist on dishing all the dirt real
or imagined. You had a very good President in Bill Clinton. Americans
seem to prfer to talk about "blow jobs" in the White House" rather
than the economy, which has all gone to pot under Bush.

The Iraq war is estimated to have cost 3 trillion dollars and it has
not yet been paid for.

Since Sa'udi Arabia was where Osama bin Laden grew up, and wasn't
properly taught to respect the rights of others, we could just take
their oil fields. They're probably worth more than three billion
dollars.

We can't afford having unstable enemies of America get their hands on
The Bomb. That costs a heck of a lot more than the war in Iraq ever
could.

You have made a number of fallascies.First of all the cost is 3
trillion not billion. secondly oil is sticky black stuff, it has to
be sold and you buy it in Rotterdam. Imperialism will make no
difference to this. Military force is an extremely inefficient way of
securing energy supplies. Iraq BTW has negative efficiency. The only
way is to develop new sources of energy both terrestrial and space
based.

Thrdly, and this is most important OBL is a creation of the US. During
the Cold War the US supported the most reactionary elements in the
Miggle East to combat Communism. On 9/11 the chickins came home to
roost. Interesting the name "Taliban" is not Pashtun but Arabic. It
means students. Students I would say of US anticommunism.

The CIA and ISI (Pakistani intelligence) set up OBL and funded their
so called "students". The US is also supporting Saudi Arabia to the
hilt. The country that seems to pay no need to anyone else is the US.
Up to 9/11 no one cared about what the Taliban were doing. After 9/11
it became a rightous war for womwn's rights. The US did not care a
toss for women's or anyone else's rights during the CW.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 24 Feb, 12:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 23 Feb, 23:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :On 22 Feb, 14:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Ian Parker wrote:
: : :
: : : :On 17 Feb, 18:48, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Yes, but I don't recall him ever making up things about what you
: : : : wrote, or believe. *For some reason, I seem to attract personal
: : : : attacks from the moron brigade (Chomko and Parker, among others).
: : : :
: : : : And I should note preemptively for people who imagine that they attack
: : : : me because I call them out for what they are, are confusing cause and
: : : : effect.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :This is because you have gone further than anyone else in your
: : : :allegations of paedophila.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Ian, you're insane. *Nobody made any such allegations. *The fact that
: : : you obsess and claim they have when they have not makes it look like
: : : there is substance there.
: : :
: : :
: : :These have been fully documented if you would only click on them.
: : :
: :
: : No they haven't. *Besides, I've been here right along. *I know what
: : the reality was and it was nothing like you claim at all.
: :
: : :
: : :No comment has been made on my other point, that of research claimed
: : :which I doubt has been done.
: : :
: :
: : When did you EVER have a point, Ian?
: :
: : --
: : "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: : *territory."
: : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn
: :
: :Well here is the thread and the message.
: :
: :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/c...
: :He appears to have done it again to someone else.
: :
: :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...se_frm/thread/...
: :Message 342.
: :
: :I must say that when I first read the message I did not realize that
: :Rand had a track record. Had I, I would have come to different
: :conclusions.
: :
:
: As has been repeatedly explained to you, what Rand did was pose the
: same sort of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" complex question
: that you so love to use. *It was an attempt to point out to you the
: fallacious tactics that you were engaging in.
:
: You are obviously too thick to figure that out, even when it's
: explained to you.
:
: :
:
: snip loonytoon stuff that never appeared in this newsgroup
:
:
:No it isn't. Have you stopped beating your wife was designed to show
:the fallacy of one word answers. This can be done by information
:theory anyway. If you have a piece of information thast requires more
:than one bit it cannot be compressed into a bit. Rand has never been
:restricted to bits. He can write "Primavera", he does not even have to
:guess the meaning of "spring"! But this is not a question about
:compression.
:

As I said above, you are obviously too thick to figure that out, even
when it's explained to you.

The loon spew above more than ever convinces me you're merely an
experimental Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S).

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

Ian Parker wrote:

Ian, we keep correcting your stupidly false statements, but you keep
making the same ones over and over again.

:
:You have made a number of fallascies.First of all the cost is 3
:trillion not billion.
:

First, you're off by an order of magnitude. The cost of the war in
Iraq is currently under &0.5 trillion.

:
:... secondly oil is sticky black stuff, it has to
:be sold and you buy it in Rotterdam.
:

Hogwash. The spot market in Rotterdam is a tiny, tiny part of the
world oil trade.

:
:Imperialism will make no difference to this.
:

It would if someone actually tried it. Surely even you aren't THIS
stupid.

:
:Thrdly, and this is most important OBL is a creation of the US.
:

False. You've been repeated both told and shown that this is false.
You keep saying it. This means you are now in the realm of
deliberately lying.

:
:The CIA and ISI (Pakistani intelligence) set up OBL and funded their
:so called "students".
:

False. You've been repeated both told and shown that this is false.
You keep saying it. This means you are now in the realm of
deliberately lying.

:
:The US is also supporting Saudi Arabia to the
:hilt.
:

One would certainly hope so, since the Saudi monarchy is probably the
most progressive force in that country. Who do YOU want running the
place, Ian?

:
:The country that seems to pay no need to anyone else is the US.
:

Well, we certainly don't pay any attention to what idiots like you
say.

:
:Up to 9/11 no one cared about what the Taliban were doing.
:

Yeah, sure. That would be why Clinton was firing Tomahawk missiles at
them, right?

What a maroon...

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

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:04:41 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


My first thought was that he had got access to personal conversations,
possibly though a Middle East desk. To me the personality of Rand is
something to fantasise about!

Boy, you can say that again. *It seems to be your major preoccupation.
I just wish that you wouldn't share your fantasies with the world.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here we go again. Fantasies, need help. That is ALL you seem to fill
your postings with. All my fantasies are documented.

Indeed they are. That doesn't, however, render them non-fantasies.

On Feb 24, 12:27 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
The US did not care a
toss for women's or anyone else's rights during the CW.

Great Britain obviously didn't care for anyone's rights during World
War II, because it allied itself with Stalin's regime in Russia,
right?

Of course, that would be a stupid accusation. Stopping Hitler was the
*most important* struggle in the defense of human rights at that time.

During the Cold War, now that Hitler had been disposed of, we had a
nuclear-armed Soviet Union bent on world conquest to deal with. So
that meant the U.S. didn't have the ability to pick and choose the
governments of Third World nations that it had to defend from
Communist attack.

It's certainly true that the U.S. isn't really bent on promoting the
equality of women aggressively from one end of the Islamic world to
the other. This is probably a good idea, since if it comes to
occupying the homelands of the world's one billion Muslims, a draft
would be inevitable.

Vietnam was during the Cold War, when nuking North Vietnam was not an
option, thanks to that pesky Soviet Union. G. W. Bush is doing
everything he can to work with the existing regimes in the Muslim
world, warts and all, to *prevent* the nightmare where some other type
of government, in a United States exhausted by war, and shocked by a
new act of terror, decides to end the conflict the neat, easy, simple
- and genocidal - way, by just pushing a button.

He is doing the right thing, following responsible policies and
staying the course. That is the best way to ensure it never comes to
that.

John Savard

On 24 Feb, 22:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 24 Feb, 12:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 23 Feb, 23:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :On 22 Feb, 14:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Ian Parker wrote:
: : :
: : : :On 17 Feb, 18:48, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Yes, but I don't recall him ever making up things about what you
: : : : wrote, or believe. *For some reason, I seem to attract personal
: : : : attacks from the moron brigade (Chomko and Parker, among others).
: : : :
: : : : And I should note preemptively for people who imagine that they attack
: : : : me because I call them out for what they are, are confusing cause and
: : : : effect.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :This is because you have gone further than anyone else in your
: : : :allegations of paedophila.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Ian, you're insane. *Nobody made any such allegations. *The fact that
: : : you obsess and claim they have when they have not makes it look like
: : : there is substance there.
: : :
: : :
: : :These have been fully documented if you would only click on them.
: : :
: :
: : No they haven't. *Besides, I've been here right along. *I know what
: : the reality was and it was nothing like you claim at all.
: :
: : :
: : :No comment has been made on my other point, that of research claimed
: : :which I doubt has been done.
: : :
: :
: : When did you EVER have a point, Ian?
: :
: : --
: : "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: : *territory."
: : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn
: :
: :Well here is the thread and the message.
: :
: :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/c....
: :He appears to have done it again to someone else.
: :
: :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...se_frm/thread/....
: :Message 342.
: :
: :I must say that when I first read the message I did not realize that
: :Rand had a track record. Had I, I would have come to different
: :conclusions.
: :
:
: As has been repeatedly explained to you, what Rand did was pose the
: same sort of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" complex question
: that you so love to use. *It was an attempt to point out to you the
: fallacious tactics that you were engaging in.
:
: You are obviously too thick to figure that out, even when it's
: explained to you.
:
: :
:
: snip loonytoon stuff that never appeared in this newsgroup
:
:
:No it isn't. Have you stopped beating your wife was designed to show
:the fallacy of one word answers. This can be done by information
:theory anyway. If you have a piece of information thast requires more
:than one bit it cannot be compressed into a bit. Rand has never been
:restricted to bits. He can write "Primavera", he does not even have to
:guess the meaning of "spring"! But this is not a question about
:compression.
:

As I said above, you are obviously too thick to figure that out, even
when it's explained to you.

The loon spew above more than ever convinces me you're merely an
experimental Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S).

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

As I said there were many possible ways of replying. As I said there
is no limit, there is no word count. Thre problem I believe is a
complex one. A free enterprise business and university system tends to
ensure that the best people are chosen. The system in the US public
sector is based a lot on patronage.

Lets ask a simple question - Can Americans learn Arabic? In the
private sector you learn it if you have to. Kurtzweil in fact claims
that you do not have to know it to produce statistical translation,
although there is no question that he isn't employing the best people.

In the public sector the most obvious question is "Do you gain
anything?". As I said you seem to gain more by being a rabid
evangelical. There is no incentive to acquire knowledge.


- Ian Parker

On Feb 25, 4:10 am, Ian Parker wrote:

Lets ask a simple question - Can Americans learn Arabic?

Oh, of course they could.

Learning a second language, however, requires a lot of time and
effort. Much of this effort is dull rote memorization. And it's a
skill that requires practise to retain as well.

So the fact that America has a privileged position - that classes in,
say, Spanish as a second language are treated like art or drama
classes, optional subjects not part of the core curriculum, essential
for promotion - benefits its educational system. People who are "all
thumbs" when it comes to second-language learning - like people with a
"tin ear" who can't seem to learn to play a musical instrument -
aren't barred from entering college, and pursuing careers in science
and engineering. And the enthusiasm of other students for learning
isn't blunted by at least one additional source of drudgery in the
school day.

If there was lots of interesting entertainment material produced in
Arabic, or if Arabic speakers were economically dominant, so that
learning Arabic was useful in gaining employment in the cities,
Americans would learn Arabic just as other people have learned other
languages in countries affected by one form or another of colonialism.

Of course, from the context of your other posts, the question is
really - are Americans willing to take the trouble to understand the
mind of the Islamic world?

Americans, like human beings generally, when in what they perceive to
be a position of strength and not weakness, naturally react to events
such as those of September 11, 2001 as follows: it is not for us to
understand them; it is for them to understand, and very quickly, that
this sort of nonsense shall not be further tolerated.

Cooler heads have prevailed - there are people in the CIA who *can*
read Arabic, and G. W. Bush, drawing on his experience in the oil
industry, believes the terrorists to be unrepresentative of the
Islamic world, with which we can continue to build ties of friendship.

I think the proper response of the rest of us to this is to be
pleasantly surprised by the statesmanship and sobriety of the American
response to terror, and not to annoy the American people with requests
to do even better. September 11, 2001 has left them in a bad temper,
and thus such efforts are likely to be counter-productive.

John Savard

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 24 Feb, 22:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 24 Feb, 12:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :On 23 Feb, 23:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Ian Parker wrote:
: : :
: : : :On 22 Feb, 14:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : Ian Parker wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :On 17 Feb, 18:48, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : Yes, but I don't recall him ever making up things about what you
: : : : : wrote, or believe. *For some reason, I seem to attract personal
: : : : : attacks from the moron brigade (Chomko and Parker, among others).
: : : : :
: : : : : And I should note preemptively for people who imagine that they attack
: : : : : me because I call them out for what they are, are confusing cause and
: : : : : effect.
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :This is because you have gone further than anyone else in your
: : : : :allegations of paedophila.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Ian, you're insane. *Nobody made any such allegations. *The fact that
: : : : you obsess and claim they have when they have not makes it look like
: : : : there is substance there.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :These have been fully documented if you would only click on them.
: : : :
: : :
: : : No they haven't. *Besides, I've been here right along. *I know what
: : : the reality was and it was nothing like you claim at all.
: : :
: : : :
: : : :No comment has been made on my other point, that of research claimed
: : : :which I doubt has been done.
: : : :
: : :
: : : When did you EVER have a point, Ian?
: : :
: : : --
: : : "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: : : *territory."
: : : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn
: : :
: : :Well here is the thread and the message.
: : :
: : :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e_frm/thread/c...
: : :He appears to have done it again to someone else.
: : :
: : :http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...se_frm/thread/...
: : :Message 342.
: : :
: : :I must say that when I first read the message I did not realize that
: : :Rand had a track record. Had I, I would have come to different
: : :conclusions.
: : :
: :
: : As has been repeatedly explained to you, what Rand did was pose the
: : same sort of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" complex question
: : that you so love to use. *It was an attempt to point out to you the
: : fallacious tactics that you were engaging in.
: :
: : You are obviously too thick to figure that out, even when it's
: : explained to you.
: :
: : :
: :
: : snip loonytoon stuff that never appeared in this newsgroup
: :
: :
: :No it isn't. Have you stopped beating your wife was designed to show
: :the fallacy of one word answers. This can be done by information
: :theory anyway. If you have a piece of information thast requires more
: :than one bit it cannot be compressed into a bit. Rand has never been
: :restricted to bits. He can write "Primavera", he does not even have to
: :guess the meaning of "spring"! But this is not a question about
: :compression.
: :
:
: As I said above, you are obviously too thick to figure that out, even
: when it's explained to you.
:
: The loon spew above more than ever convinces me you're merely an
: experimental Artificial Stupidity System (A.S.S).
:
: --
: "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
: *only stupid."
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine
:
:As I said there were many possible ways of replying. As I said there
:is no limit, there is no word count. Thre problem I believe is a
:complex one. A free enterprise business and university system tends to
:ensure that the best people are chosen. The system in the US public
:sector is based a lot on patronage.
:

What planet are you living on? That's a silly remark if ever I've
seen one.

:
:Lets ask a simple question - Can Americans learn Arabic? In the
rivate sector you learn it if you have to. Kurtzweil in fact claims
:that you do not have to know it to produce statistical translation,
:although there is no question that he isn't employing the best people.
:
:In the public sector the most obvious question is "Do you gain
:anything?". As I said you seem to gain more by being a rabid
:evangelical. There is no incentive to acquire knowledge.
:

More evidence that Ian Parker is merely a misfunctioning A.S.S.

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

On 25 Feb, 13:48, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:10 am, Ian Parker wrote:

Lets ask a simple question - Can Americans learn Arabic?

Oh, of course they could.

Learning a second language, however, requires a lot of time and
effort. Much of this effort is dull rote memorization. And it's a
skill that requires practise to retain as well.

So the fact that America has a privileged position - that classes in,
say, Spanish as a second language are treated like art or drama
classes, optional subjects not part of the core curriculum, essential
for promotion - benefits its educational system. People who are "all
thumbs" when it comes to second-language learning - like people with a
"tin ear" who can't seem to learn to play a musical instrument -
aren't barred from entering college, and pursuing careers in science
and engineering. And the enthusiasm of other students for learning
isn't blunted by at least one additional source of drudgery in the
school day.

If there was lots of interesting entertainment material produced in
Arabic, or if Arabic speakers were economically dominant, so that
learning Arabic was useful in gaining employment in the cities,
Americans would learn Arabic just as other people have learned other
languages in countries affected by one form or another of colonialism.

Of course, from the context of your other posts, the question is
really - are Americans willing to take the trouble to understand the
mind of the Islamic world?

Yes I think this is bang on. My point funamentally is this. If you are
going to simply go to Rotterdam and pay whatever the price it is, you
do not need to know Arabic, you do not need to understand the Islamic
mindset. If you are involved though you need to get the best people
available.

If you are discussing pure economics, rather than morality etc. the
most economic solution would be to smply defend yourself against
Canada or Mexico and spend all your defense money on energy and energy
research.

Americans, like human beings generally, when in what they perceive to
be a position of strength and not weakness, naturally react to events
such as those of September 11, 2001 as follows: it is not for us to
understand them; it is for them to understand, and very quickly, that
this sort of nonsense shall not be further tolerated.

Cooler heads have prevailed - there are people in the CIA who *can*
read Arabic, and G. W. Bush, drawing on his experience in the oil
industry, believes the terrorists to be unrepresentative of the
Islamic world, with which we can continue to build ties of friendship.

I think that the American people should direct their anger at what
Reagan et al. did during the Cold War. The terrorists are indeed
unrepresentative of the thought of the majority of Arabs. But

a) It only takes a small number of people to create a violent
insurrection.

b) This is where anger should be directed against Reagan and the other
cold warriors. The US backed up the most reactionary elements in
society. The backed (and are still backing) the Wahabbi régime in
Saudi Arabia, and they financed and trained OBL. They were
instrumental in getting their people into the ISI.

The ISI. In the recent elections the Pakistani people did NOT vote for
extremists. Any extremist that stood got a derisory vote. However
extremism is still well represented in the ISI and some of the middle
ranks in the Army.

I think the proper response of the rest of us to this is to be
pleasantly surprised by the statesmanship and sobriety of the American
response to terror, and not to annoy the American people with requests
to do even better. September 11, 2001 has left them in a bad temper,
and thus such efforts are likely to be counter-productive.

I could not disagree more. The actions of the US, particularly during
the Cold War were instrumental in getting terror moving. The people of
the Middle East do not want it, in fact surveys in the Middle East
show that the population as a whole is even more condemnatory of
terrorism than the West. It is after all a Western import.


- Ian Parker

On Feb 25, 9:04*am, Ian Parker wrote:

I think that the American people should direct their anger at what
Reagan et al. did during the Cold War.

That's going to be a tough sell.

Reagan won that one, so that today the people of Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Estonia, and the like are living in freedom rather
than under a wretched dictatorship.

As for OBL in Afghanistan, how is the ingratitude of Osama bin Laden
Reagan's fault? The evil of the Soviet Union limited our choices of
allies, so if the Cold War left messes around, our anger would be
directed at Russia. Which, in re Kosovo, still seems to want to differ
from the United States for no good reason.

John Savard