CEV to be made commercially available

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 06:53:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

By the way, really cool dodge of the point about market analysis tools.

And equally (actually, even more) "cool" dodge of my quesion of how
much my family should suffer before the great "Dave O'Neill" will
consider me worthy of being part of the alt-space community.

Don't be hysterical Rand.

I'm not being "hysterical." You're the one who accused me of working
for big aerospace so that I could keep a roof over my head.

No, actually I didn't. That's how you read it and your mind warped it
in the process.

I believe I accused you of suckling at the government teat - in
particular government space acitivty which you then slag off. I can
absolutely understand why you have to do it, but I find your
Schizophrenic attitude towards it to be borderline hypocritical.

But for somebody who has such strong convictions on some many many
subjects, your own values seem to then default to "I'm alright Jack" -
if you'd accept that trait in others too it would be a start.

Dave

wrote:
Dave O'Neill wrote:

The Advanced Search Tag seems to work, I searched for Author: "Rand
Simberg" in sci.space.policy between Jan 1980 and the present day.
That got 17,000 hits. I then searched for all archieved
sci.space.policy posts which were about 25,000 - so at least in terms
of the stuff that has been stored, Rand is way ahead of the pack. I've
been down under a couple of aliases but I've a few 1000 - I didn't
search other people.

I used the same technique, but limitted it to 2005.

Results 1 - 10 of 2,430 from Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 8, 2005 for
group:sci.space.policy author:rand (0.05 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of 45,600 from Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 8, 2005 for
group:sci.space.policy (0.39 seconds)

While Rand does post rather a lot (without actually saying anything...
just "you're wrong" one-liners), his posts do seem to be a small
fraction of the total. Still a lot, though...

Not sure how you only got 25K posts for 25 years worth of SSP. While
45K posts for one year is surprisignly large, 25K posts for 25 years is
unbelievably small. Averages out to about 3 per day.

I did suspect that to be an error on the google search engine.

I did this on a date range of the time I've been actually posting on
ssp earlier in the year which is where I got the 25% number from.

Got 36 for you and 187 for me and 366 for Henry Spencer and 1170 for
Chomko and 1400 for Flannery, if that makes any difference.

You see I know I gave up for a while in 2005 but 36 seems low to me.
However, Rand still leads all of us, even Eric.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:00:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Given what you, yourself call people on and off Usenews - thinking for
a moment of your rabid diatribes about what an idiot and mental
deficient Mark Whittington is

I've never called him either.

You called him "clueless" on several occasions on November 28 on your
Blog. You questioned his reading comprehension then and on several
other occasions. You accused him of "fantasies" about what you write
then too.

Of course, if we run true to Simberg form these were very very rare
occasions when you mispoke.

- this whole wounded, "poor me" routine
is a little nauseating.

I'm not doing a "poor me" routine.

It's how your posting comes across.

I'm simply objectively pointing
out the slanderous nature of the creature's utterings. I'm no victim.
You're the one who foolishly talked about lawyers, not me.

shrug Again, a strange response given the context in which lawyers
were raised.

If it doesn't bother you, I'm wondering why you keep replying.

You need to start debating again Rand rather than pathetically jerking
your knee when people have the shear afrontary to disagree with some of
your sacred cows.

My what?

You do _know_ what a "Sacred Cow" is don't you? The term is in the
dictionary.

Yes.

My what?

Your sacred cows - you've dozens of them. DO you want to play this
game all day?

I've no interest in playing games at all. You're the one who seems to
want to do that, hinting at mysterious "sacred cows," but refusing to
specify what they are.

Oh don't play this game, it's silly. You're a deeply opinionated
individual with hugely strongly held opinions on many subjects, some of
which, on occasion you've been paid to share.

You fail, conspiculously to debate on many of them, instead resorting
too silly games and insults. You're amazingly good at it.

I've missed how upset I seem to get you :-p

You'll continue to miss it. I'm (as usual) quite calm. And amused.



If you insist. I just can't image why a calm, amused person would
derive pleasure from behaving the way you do here and on your Blog. You
come over as an angry man.

My excuse is I'm venting and you do so bring out the worst in me.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:00:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Given what you, yourself call people on and off Usenews - thinking for
a moment of your rabid diatribes about what an idiot and mental
deficient Mark Whittington is

I've never called him either.

You called him "clueless" on several occasions on November 28 on your
Blog. You questioned his reading comprehension then and on several
other occasions. You accused him of "fantasies" about what you write
then too.

Of course, if we run true to Simberg form these were very very rare
occasions when you mispoke.

- this whole wounded, "poor me" routine
is a little nauseating.

I'm not doing a "poor me" routine.

It's how your posting comes across.

I'm simply objectively pointing
out the slanderous nature of the creature's utterings. I'm no victim.
You're the one who foolishly talked about lawyers, not me.

shrug Again, a strange response given the context in which lawyers
were raised.

If it doesn't bother you, I'm wondering why you keep replying.

You need to start debating again Rand rather than pathetically jerking
your knee when people have the shear afrontary to disagree with some of
your sacred cows.

My what?

You do _know_ what a "Sacred Cow" is don't you? The term is in the
dictionary.

Yes.

My what?

Your sacred cows - you've dozens of them. DO you want to play this
game all day?

I've no interest in playing games at all. You're the one who seems to
want to do that, hinting at mysterious "sacred cows," but refusing to
specify what they are.

Oh don't play this game, it's silly. You're a deeply opinionated
individual with hugely strongly held opinions on many subjects, some of
which, on occasion you've been paid to share.

You fail, conspiculously to debate on many of them, instead resorting
to silly games and insults. You're amazingly good at it.

I've missed how upset I seem to get you :-p

You'll continue to miss it. I'm (as usual) quite calm. And amused.



If you insist. I just can't image why a calm, amused person would
derive pleasure from behaving the way you do here and on your Blog. You
come over as an angry man.

My excuse is I'm venting and you do so bring out the worst in me.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:09:10 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 06:53:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

By the way, really cool dodge of the point about market analysis tools.

And equally (actually, even more) "cool" dodge of my quesion of how
much my family should suffer before the great "Dave O'Neill" will
consider me worthy of being part of the alt-space community.

Don't be hysterical Rand.

I'm not being "hysterical." You're the one who accused me of working
for big aerospace so that I could keep a roof over my head.

No, actually I didn't. That's how you read it and your mind warped it
in the process.

I believe I accused you of suckling at the government teat - in
particular government space acitivty which you then slag off.

Quote: "you certainly are prepared to suckle from the government teat
to keep a roof over your head."

Which translated into: "working for big aerospace" when parsed through
your brain.

I was specifically referring to your work with government space
agencies which I believe you said you have been doing around fuel
depots?

I see no issue with you working for Big Aerospace companies in your
position, but I do find given your almost explosive reaction to
anything tainted with government direct cash and government space that
this is a little hypocritical. A trait you seem to hate in others.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:23:41 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:00:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Given what you, yourself call people on and off Usenews - thinking for
a moment of your rabid diatribes about what an idiot and mental
deficient Mark Whittington is

I've never called him either.

You called him "clueless" on several occasions on November 28 on your
Blog. You questioned his reading comprehension then and on several
other occasions. You accused him of "fantasies" about what you write
then too.

All of which were demonstrably true.

No, they may be true to you but they're certainly not _true_ to other
people. Heh. We're back to Randian Cows again.

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Dave

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:31:36 -0600, Dave O'Neill wrote
(in article . com):

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Once you realize that's where he's coming from, it's much easier to
toss him into the killfile and be done with it.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

On 8 Dec 2005 06:53:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

By the way, really cool dodge of the point about market analysis tools.

And equally (actually, even more) "cool" dodge of my quesion of how
much my family should suffer before the great "Dave O'Neill" will
consider me worthy of being part of the alt-space community.

Don't be hysterical Rand.

I'm not being "hysterical." You're the one who accused me of working
for big aerospace so that I could keep a roof over my head.

On 8 Dec 2005 07:00:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Given what you, yourself call people on and off Usenews - thinking for
a moment of your rabid diatribes about what an idiot and mental
deficient Mark Whittington is

I've never called him either.

- this whole wounded, "poor me" routine
is a little nauseating.

I'm not doing a "poor me" routine. I'm simply objectively pointing
out the slanderous nature of the creature's utterings. I'm no victim.
You're the one who foolishly talked about lawyers, not me.

You need to start debating again Rand rather than pathetically jerking
your knee when people have the shear afrontary to disagree with some of
your sacred cows.

My what?

You do _know_ what a "Sacred Cow" is don't you? The term is in the
dictionary.

Yes.

My what?

Your sacred cows - you've dozens of them. DO you want to play this
game all day?

I've no interest in playing games at all. You're the one who seems to
want to do that, hinting at mysterious "sacred cows," but refusing to
specify what they are.

I've missed how upset I seem to get you :-p

You'll continue to miss it. I'm (as usual) quite calm. And amused.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Nope.

That's a neat trick too, Q modifies the spacetime continuum,
so that the 'BORG' Rand Simborg, stays on top of it all.

Yes, the BORG is always #1. It's all about the BORG.

http://cosmic.lifeform.net
http://cosmic.lifeform.org