A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More good news



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 5th 04, 12:13 AM
Vincent Cate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 12:13 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 12:27 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 02:20 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 02:45 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 03:02 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 03:17 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 03:20 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 03:44 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 03:45 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.