An oasis on the moon?

John Griffin wrote:
The next ten years is the next decade. The next ten of anything
is a next decade. (Speaking of definitions...)

No, that would be "within *a* decade". "A decade" is a period
of ten years. "*The* decade" is, by custom and convention, a
period of ten years with end points at suitably proper
multiples of ten years (e.g. "the sixties", being 1960-1969
or 1961-1970 depending on preference). "The next decade" would
obviously refer to the next such regular interval. The
overwhelming consensus for what time period "the next decade"
refers to is almost assuredly 2010-2019.

Compare with: "the century", "the millenium", "the week",
"the month", "the next century", "the next month", etc. Your
definition is decidely non-standard.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
John Griffin wrote:
The next ten years is the next decade. The next ten of anything
is a next decade. (Speaking of definitions...)

No, that would be "within *a* decade". "A decade" is a period
of ten years. "*The* decade" is, by custom and convention, a
period of ten years with end points at suitably proper
multiples of ten years (e.g. "the sixties", being 1960-1969
or 1961-1970 depending on preference). "The next decade" would
obviously refer to the next such regular interval. The
overwhelming consensus for what time period "the next decade"
refers to is almost assuredly 2010-2019.

Compare with: "the century", "the millenium", "the week",
"the month", "the next century", "the next month", etc. Your
definition is decidely non-standard.


Either way, it's still a crack induced dream.

"Chingon" wrote in message nk.net...

Either way, it's still a crack induced dream.


You could have said the same thing about Kennedy's proposition in '62.
Much more so, actually.


Technologically it's no problem. Every Shuttle launch packed enough
punch that could have flung an Apollo capsule and a LEM to the Moon,
including enough fuel to land there and to take off again.

Psychologically it depends on whether enough people can be convinced
that going back to the Moon is useful. If that were possible it
could be done in less than ten years...



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:47:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Chingon"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Compare with: "the century", "the millenium", "the week",
"the month", "the next century", "the next month", etc. Your
definition is decidely non-standard.


Either way, it's still a crack induced dream.

No, it's quite likely, though it's somewhat less likely that it will
be done by a government space agency.

Don=B4t forget the next `salary=B4 ;-)

"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Chingon" wrote in message
nk.net...

Either way, it's still a crack induced dream.


You could have said the same thing about Kennedy's proposition in '62.
Much more so, actually.

No. Back then, America still had guts.



Technologically it's no problem. Every Shuttle launch packed enough
punch that could have flung an Apollo capsule and a LEM to the Moon,
including enough fuel to land there and to take off again.

Psychologically it depends on whether enough people can be convinced
that going back to the Moon is useful. If that were possible it
could be done in less than ten years...

Well duh.

On 27-Feb-2005, "Chingon" wrote:

You could have said the same thing about Kennedy's proposition in '62.
Much more so, actually.

No. Back then, America still had guts.

I'm not sure whether that is praise or commendation.

At any rate - what criteria are you using? Kennedy made threats, he sent
"advisors" to Vietnam, and told Cuban exiles that he would support them if
they invaded Cuba, but lied.

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

Obviously I can't tell by looking at what Presidents do to determine whether
"America" had guts. What should I look at? (I was in Jr. High when
Kennedy died)

wrote in message
ink.net...

On 27-Feb-2005, "Chingon" wrote:

You could have said the same thing about Kennedy's proposition in '62.
Much more so, actually.

No. Back then, America still had guts.

I'm not sure whether that is praise or commendation.

At any rate - what criteria are you using? Kennedy made threats, he sent
"advisors" to Vietnam, and told Cuban exiles that he would support them if
they invaded Cuba, but lied.

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

Obviously I can't tell by looking at what Presidents do to determine
whether
"America" had guts. What should I look at? (I was in Jr. High when
Kennedy died)


Look at your fellow citizens. See how many of them are sheep? That's the
only answer I can give you. You either get it, or you don't.

On 27-Feb-2005, h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

I doubt if any successful president has avoided lying. I'll go further to
say that a President who doesn't lie at all is not serving his country as
well as he can.

But it if you are talking about twisting the truth to any degree, obviously
all that is necessary is to have him say something that I don't believe is
100% truth. I bet you can find something that the President has said that
you don't agree with.

On 27-Feb-2005, "Chingon" wrote:

Obviously I can't tell by looking at what Presidents do to determine
whether
"America" had guts. What should I look at? (I was in Jr. High when
Kennedy died)


Look at your fellow citizens. See how many of them are sheep? That's the
only answer I can give you. You either get it, or you don't.

Your claim wasn't that my fellow citizens has a lot of sheep, it was that
Americans during the Kennedy administration had guts. I remember sheep
back then as well.

You are implying a significant difference between then and now. I asked
for an illustration of that difference. Was it our betrayal of the Bay of
Pigs incident that showed our guts? Was it our unwillingness to compete
with blacks on equal settings that showed our guts?

I contend that the guts you see we had in that administration that you don't
see now are illusory.