A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Questions about "The High Frontier"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old November 17th 07, 10:58 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"



OM wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, Hop David
wrote:


You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself.


...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your
arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions, you're going to
wind up having only yourself to reply to. Hop, you're *BETTER* than
this. Your past posts have proven this, and your bickering with Pat
isn't doing *ANYONE* one iota of good. It's rapidly putting you into a
troll category, and quite a few people are getting *REALLY* ****ing
sick of how your posts have degenerated in this direction.


Absolutely, ****ing right.
What he tried to pull was 100% right out of line, and completely
infamous and slanderous.
If we get into fights about things, then at least do it without lying
about what one another wrote and posted.
You've never done that in any posting you've done; and I've always
respected you for that.
Mind you, anyone trying to replicate or fake your particular turn of
phrase regarding insults would be doomed, but that's beside the point. :-D

Pay
  #562  
Old November 17th 07, 03:35 PM posted to sci.space.history
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

OM wrote:

...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your
arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions,


Uh, he's not accusing me of accidental misattribution. He's accusing me
of intentional misattribution, outright lies and slander.

Attribution lines have one less quotation bar than the quoted text they
refer to. Anyone with a week's usenet experience and a double digit IQ
should know this convention.

I invite anyone to look at his post and judge for themselves.

http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq

The post cited above has not more than two quotation bars. It's not hard
to tell who said what.


Hop
  #563  
Old November 17th 07, 03:46 PM posted to sci.space.history
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

Pat Flannery wrote:



OM wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, Hop David
wrote:



You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself.



...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your
arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions, you're going to
wind up having only yourself to reply to. Hop, you're *BETTER* than
this. Your past posts have proven this, and your bickering with Pat
isn't doing *ANYONE* one iota of good. It's rapidly putting you into a
troll category, and quite a few people are getting *REALLY* ****ing
sick of how your posts have degenerated in this direction.



Absolutely, ****ing right.
What he tried to pull was 100% right out of line, and completely
infamous and slanderous.


Ah, more of the flames Om would have me ignor.

Attribution lines have one less quotation bar than the quoted text they
refer to.

http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq

The "Hop David wrote:" attribution line has one quotation bar. The text
supposedly misattributed to Pat has two quotation bars.

No semantics here, just simple arithmetic.


Hop
  #564  
Old November 17th 07, 04:51 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

OM wrote:

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:08:27 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:


So first he lies about what I wrote,



...Hoppy's getting frustrated these days. I fear he's developing
Chumpko's Syndrome,


http://tinyurl.com/yw5u5g

You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. It also
indicates that I was replying to myself with the top line "Hop David wrote:"

My insult to Pat that follows has a single greater-than-sign preceding
each line. This indicates Hop David wrote it. There was no
misattribution, intentional or otherwise.

I suspect Chomko could correctly interpret the post.


Actually, I wouldn't bet on that.
  #565  
Old November 17th 07, 06:38 PM posted to sci.space.history
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


OM wrote:


On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:08:27 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



So first he lies about what I wrote,


...Hoppy's getting frustrated these days. I fear he's developing
Chumpko's Syndrome,


http://tinyurl.com/yw5u5g

You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. It also
indicates that I was replying to myself with the top line "Hop David wrote:"

My insult to Pat that follows has a single greater-than-sign preceding
each line. This indicates Hop David wrote it. There was no
misattribution, intentional or otherwise.

I suspect Chomko could correctly interpret the post.



Actually, I wouldn't bet on that.


I haven't seen Chomko achieve Pat's level of inumeracy.

Attribution line has one less quotation bar than the text it refers to.

http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq
Has not more than two quotation bars. It is very easy to tell who wrote
what.

Pat is comparing me to you: "you've obviously turned into a
troll...there's something going on that involves a particular
psychological archetype that's a true believer in space exploitation and
colonization and then degenerates into a troll...as it's happened to
Rand Simberg first."

In this case I don't mind being compared to you. In contrast to Pat,
your opinions on space exploitation seem informed by some familiarity
with math, science and business.

If there were truth to their **** bombs, Pat and Om's attacks would be
damaging. But their baseless accusations will come to rest on their own
shirts.

Hop
  #566  
Old November 17th 07, 09:51 PM posted to sci.space.history
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 656
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

OM wrote:


For God/Yahweh/Roddenberry's sake, stick to the *topic* and defend
your stand regarding that. You and Pat may never agree, but at least
the rest of us will have a better chance of seeing two sides of a
topic with a high S/N ratio than some ****-slinging flame fest would
usually supply!

OM


OK

A recap of this thread:

Jim Davis started this subthread on October 23 with the assertion that
worker housing in space made no sense. Johnny 1-A seconded this notion
with "The only way any of that would make sense is if the cost of
returning workers to Earth, and the related turnover, was less than the
cost of constructing a habitat. Slot in selected assumptions about
relative cost and you can reach an answer. The answer is almost surely
going to be 'no'.

Later in the thread I offered this model:
----
I = investment
R = value of resource
T = cost of transporting workers
H = cost of housing

If R I, your project is viable.

If the project requires workers at a remote location, you must either
transport workers or provide them housing. Either T or H must be
included in I.

If T H then it makes sense to build housing.
----

I noted that neither Johnny 1-A nor Jim Davis have demonstrated that T H.

Jim Davis' oil rigs aren't relevant. Sure, in that case T H, but
helicopter or boat transportation is far cheaper than space
transportation. Early 20th century desert mining communities are
examples of T H, this is more relevant since both T and H would be
high in either space communities or desert communities prior to
railroads and highways.

Pat's pointing at the I.S.S. in LEO wasn't relevant, there is no R
(resources) in LEO.

There were some interesting discussions on whether R can exceed I
(investment), R being lunar resources to build solar power satellites.

The argument for lunar resource to build sps was lots of energy sans
greenhouse gases and increased options for further space development. I
believe it was Paul Dietz who launched the strongest counter-argument:
There's millenia of energy in the form of sea water uranium and this
makes no CO2.

Pat informed Mike Combs that Mars is hard to colonize which had nothing
to do with anything Mike was saying.

Pat informed me that robotic Discovery missions are much less expensive
than human missions which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Nor
did that demonstrate that mining can be done sans humans. Especially
mining and manufacturing on the scale suggested in the High Frontier.

When I talk about repairing stuff in a pressurized bay vs using
teleoperated robots, Pat informs me you can't hear or smell in a vacuum.

Pat falsely accuses me of a misattribution and spews out an avalanche of
frenzied hyperbole and incoherent rants.

Om joins in. He chooses to ignor the on topic stuff and join Pat in his
false, off topic flame war. I note that figuring out who said what in
http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq is actually quite easy. Are you and Pat really
too ****ing stupid to count quotation bars? Or is your false accusation
an outright lie?

Hop
  #567  
Old November 18th 07, 09:14 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:51:50 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

Om joins in. He chooses to ignor the on topic stuff and join Pat in his
false, off topic flame war.


....No. No. NO. *NO*. Hop, you're missing the point he You were
turning the thread into a flame war over semantics and misattribs.
I've already told Pat to back off a bit, now you do the same. Get back
to the thread. Drop the semantic card in the toilet and never play it
again, and let bygones be on the misattribs. Get back to the meat of
the thread. Both of you are better than that - otherwise you're
Guthballs.

And it's OM. All caps. Like I'm yelling it at you. Spelled like it
sounds. Wo-Jo-Ho-Witz.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
  #568  
Old November 18th 07, 09:15 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default Questions about "The High Frontier"

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:38:55 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

I haven't seen Chomko achieve Pat's level of inumeracy.


....I haven't seen Chumpko achieve *anything* at Pat's level, much less
Guthball's level.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
 




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
The "experts" strike again... :) :) :) "Direct" version of my "open Service Module" on NSF gaetanomarano Policy 0 August 17th 07 02:19 PM
Great News! Boulder High School CWA "panelists" could be infor it! Starlord Amateur Astronomy 0 June 2nd 07 09:43 PM
"VideO Madness" "Pulp FictiOn!!!," ...., and "Kill Bill!!!..." Colonel Jake TM Misc 0 August 26th 06 09:24 PM
why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing? Frank Johnson Amateur Astronomy 11 January 9th 06 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM.


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.