#31
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther:
It's becoming increasingly clear that you are either an idiot, or just willfully arguementative for no good end. :-) Paul is no idiot. I think he is up there with Henry Spencer in terms of smarts and knowledge. Paul will often just point out an error (thus helping to keep the false info from confusing other readers) without bothering to explain to the poster their exact source of confusion. So he can come across as argumentative (and may really be). But you just have to think of paul as more of a "fact checker" and Henry as a "magic oracle". :-) But it would be an unusual event to find either of them wrong. -- Vince |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: Further discussion with you is clearly a waste of time. This means you've ... Blah, blah, blah. I've figured out your problem: you're posting in the wrong newsgroup. What you need is sci.space.futility.doom.doom.doom. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Vincent Cate wrote:
Scott Lowther: It's becoming increasingly clear that you are either an idiot, or just willfully arguementative for no good end. :-) Paul is no idiot. Then he's willfully arguementative to the point of being useless. Claims that we don't have technologies that we do in fact have are massively counter-productive. But you just have to think of paul as more of a "fact checker" and Henry as a "magic oracle". :-) But it would be an unusual event to find either of them wrong. Well, both have been wrong. Henry and I tangled a number of years ago on Dyna Soar, and he was dead wrong on that (claimed that DS could only haul one astronaut, when the actual number was five, and six with you wanted to strip it bare); Dietz is wrong in claiming that we'd need to develop entirely new technologies to, say, move Martian dirt around. There is a difference between developing new technologies (such as goign from piston engines to turbojets) and making those technologies better (making turbojets that ran a long time and had good fuel economy). -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
Except, of course, for the fact that we *do.* The fact that it hasn't flown doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't fall into the Dietzist luddite trap of believign that it desn't exist, can't exist, never will exist. because we already have or have developed all the technologies we'd need for any sort of reasonable "space" settlement. I, of course, never said any such thing. I take it as indicative of the quality of your arguments and of your lack of integrity that you resort to such scurrilous and despicable lies. Paul |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: Except, of course, for the fact that we *do.* The fact that it hasn't flown doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't fall into the Dietzist luddite trap of believign that it desn't exist, can't exist, never will exist. because we already have or have developed all the technologies we'd need for any sort of reasonable "space" settlement. I, of course, never said any such thing. "We don't." Your follow-on BS about functioning prototypes not indicating that we had the technology further exemplifies the point. I take it as indicative of the quality of your arguments and of your lack of integrity that you resort to such scurrilous and despicable lies. Except, of course, they're not. The fact that you believe that 'existing technology is adequate for early space settlement' is a "despicable lie" further impales any respectability you have in this matter. Now, do you have anything to actually *contribute*, or are you going to continue to do your very best ****-throwing-chimp impressions? Tap-tap-tap... -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
Except, of course, for the fact that we *do.* The fact that it hasn't flown doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't fall into the Dietzist luddite trap of believign that it desn't exist, can't exist, never will exist. because we already have or have developed all the technologies we'd need for any sort of reasonable "space" settlement. I, of course, never said any such thing. "We don't." Your follow-on BS about functioning prototypes not indicating that we had the technology further exemplifies the point. I was refering to this complete lie: he Dietzist luddite trap of believign that it desn't exist, can't exist, never will exist. I have said *nothing* that implies that. Nothing. You are a liar, Mr. Lowther, for implying that I have. Except, of course, they're not. The fact that you believe that 'existing technology is adequate for early space settlement' is a "despicable lie" further impales any respectability you have in this matter. Mr. Lowther, your hormone levels are interfering with your reasoning skills. I didn't say that 'existing technology is adequate for early space settlement' is a despicable lie, I said your mischaracterization (which I have pointed out up above there) is a despicable lie. The 'existing technologies...' statement is merely a mistaken belief, based on your weird definition of 'existing technologies' -- that is, ignore enough details and what we need and what we have become the same. Engineering by deliberate blindness. Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
ignore enough details and what we need and what we have become the same. Engineering by deliberate blindness. Now who's the liar? Who has *ever* argued that no development would be needed? You have, however, in a separate thread cast aspersions upon my character for *agreeing* with you. So, I see that you're lacking in reasoning skills. My condolensces. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote: ignore enough details and what we need and what we have become the same. Engineering by deliberate blindness. Now who's the liar? Who has *ever* argued that no development would be needed? Not what I said. I am talking about 'same' in the sense of 'are the same technology'. To you, the 'is the same technology' relationship is apparently a very broad one (all turbojets, if I read your earlier message correctly, never mind the radically new technologies for subcomponents.) Paul |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: Paul F. Dietz wrote: ignore enough details and what we need and what we have become the same. Engineering by deliberate blindness. Now who's the liar? Who has *ever* argued that no development would be needed? Not what I said. "ignore enough details and what we need and what we have become the same." Perhaps you need to work on your communications skills. English not your first language, perhaps? I am talking about 'same' in the sense of 'are the same technology'. No, it is clear that your definition of "same technology" is "same exact catalog part-number components." To you, the 'is the same technology' relationship is apparently a very broad one In broad terms, it is. Changing components or even materials does not necessarily change fundamental technologies. There is very little in, say, an F-1 rocket engine that Werner von Braun ca. 1946 would have been stumped by. The technology was essentially the same... just considerably more developed. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
More good news
Scott Lowther wrote:
In broad terms, it is. Changing components or even materials does not necessarily change fundamental technologies. There is very little in, say, an F-1 rocket engine that Werner von Braun ca. 1946 would have been stumped by. The technology was essentially the same... just considerably more developed. This is the core of our disagreement. I do *not* consider these technologies to be the same. In the same sense, I do not consider the space analogues of terrestrial production processes to be 'the same' as those terrestrial counterparts -- the differences in operating environment are too great, which will lead to the considerable redesign. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No U.S. Hab Module may be good news | Peter Altschuler | Space Station | 5 | July 27th 04 12:59 AM |
Good news for DirecTV subscribers | Patty Winter | Space Shuttle | 7 | June 17th 04 07:35 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 08:33 AM |
Good news for space policy | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 61 | August 4th 03 03:42 AM |