Valeev is by no means the worst offender

On 21 Feb, 15:25, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

On 21 Feb, 00:40, kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert.

Contamination by _what_?

Zombies. Zombie stowaways are the worst.

Be sure to check all your flight lockers to make sure no zombies are
hiding in there, and check for any Al Queda operatives as well.

It's better to be safe than free, especially in space.

No I really meant the sort of bacteria that are ubiquious on Earth.
You would in fact feel ill if the fauna of your gut disappeared.
Indigestion is indeed a side effect of the oral adminisration of
antibiotics.

Ian, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt to
physics, but it's quite clear you're an absolute _dolt_ in the
area of microbiology. * You obviously know nothing about e-
donors, acceptors or shuttles and even less about bacterial
metabolism or proteomics.

Do yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all
doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion.

These are all nano issues. Very, very interesting to be sure but not
something you have discussed before. If you are really serious I
would
have thought that the time and place was after the NASA/Singularity
announcement.

I don't think you are looking for a serious answer though. I think
you
have used the Honeywell Buzzword Generator. What you said is extremly
relevant to NASA, Kurtzweil and what they are trying to achieve, but
not really relevant to my comments on contamination, where I really
simply wanted to illustrate the ubiquity of bacteria.


Nano in many respects represents a region intermediate between the
organic and inorganic. What happens in a silican solar panel? What
happens in phtosynthesis. The quantum mechanics is the same in both
cases. In the case of silicon we have a voltage, we can if we have
enough devices drive an air conditioning system. Even drive one of
Google's servers! They have promised to be carbon neutral. In the
case
of photosynthesis we have a kind of redox reaction where an
intermediate product of some sort is formed. In fact a number of
electrons with intermediate products
are required to produce sugars, starches etc. Genetic
engineering can be used to provide hydrogen as one of the end
products. Nano will enable redox reactions.


Thinking about things a little bit deeper perhaps the extraction of
Platinum is not so way out after all. Platinum, after all has its
place on the electrochemical series. What is needed therefore for any
mineral is the correct redox potential. This is not that different in
principle from selectively extracting metals in electrochemical
cells.


However I suspect that the last thing you want is a proper discussion
of the poteial of nanotech. As I said I suspect you were going with
Honeywell. That is a typical Al-kalb technique. KT is wrong you are
not a bitch merely the daughter of one.


- Ian Parker

kT wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE.

Why are you even bothering?

Probably because even with all his issues, he's more
interesting than you.

HTH.

Deirdre

Ian Parker wrote:

On 21 Feb, 15:25, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

an, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt to
physics, but it's quite clear you're an absolute _dolt_ in the
area of microbiology. * You obviously know nothing about e-
donors, acceptors or shuttles and even less about bacterial
metabolism or proteomics.

Do yourself a flavor and shut up before you truly remove all
doubt as to your recto-cranial inversion.

I don't think you are looking for a serious answer though.

I don't expect a serious or even intelligent discussion from
you...we've going over this before. You aren't capable of
discussing this at any level beyond that of a layman.

where I really
simply wanted to illustrate the ubiquity of bacteria.

Nano will enable redox reactions.

sigh Now you're an expert in reduction-oxidation? You
couldn't even effectively make an argument for the sus-
tainability of terrestrial micro-organisms in the absence
of normal e- donors on the Martian surface and you think
you can intelligently debate Eh potentials?

Puh-leeze, Ian...pull the other one...it has bells.

However I suspect that the last thing you want is a proper discussion
of the poteial of nanotech.

Not with a layman, I don't. Especially not with one who
has so little control he responds _three_ times to the
same post. Get a grip, Ian, you're drumming your heels
again.

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE.

Why are you even bothering?

Probably because even with all his issues, he's more
interesting than you.

Ok then, you admit Ian is interesting.

That's a start. You two need to get together on a real date.

Opposites attract, remember?

"Ian Parker" wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas aka
Bint Al-kalb wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:
I suspect that the last thing you want is a proper discussion
of the poteial of nanotech. As I said I suspect you were going with
Honeywell. That is a typical Al-kalb technique. KT is wrong you are
not a bitch merely the daughter of one.
- Ian Parker

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... you are catching on, Parker... ahahaha...
The Shemale "macht das Kalb with you"... IOW s/he is
just ****ing with you. So, enjoy it and it will crank him'er.
Thanks for get laughs guys.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

On 21 Feb, 18:45, "hanson" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas akaBint Al-kalb wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

I suspect that the last thing you want is a proper discussion
of the poteial of nanotech. As I said I suspect you were going with
Honeywell. That is a typical Al-kalb technique. KT is wrong you are
not a bitch merely the daughter of one.
- Ian Parker

hanson wrote:

... ahahahaha... you are catching on, Parker... ahahaha...
The Shemale "macht das Kalb with you"... IOW s/he is
just ****ing with you. So, enjoy it and it will crank him'er.
Thanks for get laughs guys.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

der Hund - gender NOT das kalb


- Ian Parker

On 21 Feb, 18:40, kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE.

Why are you even bothering?

Probably because even with all his issues, he's more
interesting than you.

Ok then, you admit Ian is interesting.

That's a start. You two need to get together on a real date.

Opposites attract, remember?

Dates? No - 3 reasons

1) We are a long distance away. There are cybersex robots in
existence. These will no doubt find their places in the sex industry.
They might even be killer apps!

2) I am happily married. I have been loyal all these years and I see
no reson to be disloyal now.

3) I doubt whether all of this is about me. True, whatever their
motives Deirdre and Fred are a dispicable pair. That much cannot de
denied. Why are they doing this. I don't in fact think the argument is
with me, it has ceased to be long ago. No, the argument is with the
new NASA management and also with Obama who has sacked Mick Griffin.
It is in fact the NASA management that has gone into new technology.
Promted by leadership from the top.

No, NASA is mad, Obama is mad. They can't however say that in as many
words. They have to pick on me, or appear to pick on me. That is the
basic Al-kalb technique.

Another possibility is that classified infrmation was being discussed
in the group and their aim is to close the whole thing down. They know
that if they manage to steer it on a collision course with the NASA
mainstream it will probably fold. I think it would be a pity if it
did, but that is the place it is surely heading.

I just don't know. On the surface they are simply ignorant
individuals. How much biochemistry does Deidre know? I don't think
that much. As I said it was the Honeywell Generator.



- Ian Parker

kT wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE.

Why are you even bothering?

Probably because even with all his issues, he's more
interesting than you.

Ok then, you admit Ian is interesting.

You're coming late to the party, kT...I've said that from the
start...his monumental conceit of himself is fascinating. He
rattles on like a parrot on benzadrine, but he never actually
addresses any scientific points made by others...in that, his
avoidance skills are really quite remarkable. When was the
last time you saw someone claiming have a "scientific dis-
cussion" yet ignoring every fact in favour of making it up
as they go along?

Ian _is_ interesting, kT, but for all the wrong reasons.

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

kT wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
Ian's babblings are of NO SIGNIFICANCE.

Why are you even bothering?
Probably because even with all his issues, he's more
interesting than you.
Ok then, you admit Ian is interesting.

You're coming late to the party, kT...I've said that from the
start...his monumental conceit of himself is fascinating. He
rattles on like a parrot on benzadrine, but he never actually
addresses any scientific points made by others...in that, his
avoidance skills are really quite remarkable. When was the
last time you saw someone claiming have a "scientific dis-
cussion" yet ignoring every fact in favour of making it up
as they go along?

Ian _is_ interesting, kT, but for all the wrong reasons.

Crackpotology is indeed interesting, but Ian only has a mild case of
nanobotology. All of his other symptoms are a result of that obsession.

Most of us real crackpots have moved on to other more interesting
crackpot ideas. The whole idea of crackpotology is to keep moving,
because it's very large field where crackpot ideas seemingly appear out
of nowhere, only to vaporize into nonsense shortly thereafter, once
actual data and evidence start to appear. It's a useful tool for those
bored with traditional methods of science, but it's only a single tool.

Smart crackpots simply use their nuttiness to discover hidden truths.
Honestly, if science wasn't fun, the tedium would drive you insane ...

in the membrane.

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 21 Feb, 16:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 20 Feb, 22:39, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :On 20 Feb, 18:56, Deirdre Sholto wrote:
: :
: : :
: : : Lovely...does that mean you'll no longer be presenting
: : : to an empty room?
: : :
: : :
: : :I think the conclusion must be that sci.space.policy is totally
: : :lacking in constructive ideas. This should have been obvious a lot
: : :earlier.
: : :
: :
: : No, I think the conclusion must be that the Artificial Stupidity
: : System (A.S.S.) known locally as 'Ian Parker' is too bloody thick to
: : have an idea, constructive or otherwise.
: :
: : :
: : :All they seem to want to do is put panspermia from Eareth into
: : ractice. Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert.
: : :
: :
: : As is contamination from any unmanned expedition, apparently.
: :
: : Is this your latest 'cause', Ian? *Given up on AI, von Neumann
: : machines, and all the rest of your usual claptrap to now claim manned
: : flight is bad because of possible contamination?
: :
: : It goes without saying that you're a bloody moron.
: :
: :
: :Look, those are the areas NASA is now investigating.
: :
:
: But they're not. *SOME of them are being looked at, but not as "We
: have to have this to go on" things, as you insist they are.
:
: :
: :We have indeed reached the end of the road.
: :
:
: Well, thank Ghu! *I assume that means you're going to now shut up and
: slink away.
:
: :
: :NASA will find you inceasiningly irrelevant - and your girlfriend.
: :
:
: No, Ian. *They'll just continue to ignore idiots like you.
:
: You know, I posted some serious discussion in response to one of your
: articles several days ago. *That reply has been met by a deafening
: silence on your part.
:
: I think you stand revealed for what you are by that, A.S.S.
:
:
:I've never seen anything.
:

Well, that I can believe, given your intellectual blindness.

:
:May have been a bit in piles of ****.
:

It was a quite long post and the only pile of **** here is you.

:
:Fact
:remains how do you view NASA's contribution to Kurtzweil's university?
:

What 'fact' would that be, Ian?

:
:Nobody has EVER answered that question. I would have thought it was a
erfectly straightforward one.
:

Nobody has ever ASKED that question. I would have thought that if it
mattered to you you'd have done so. But you were too busy spitting
and fuming and saying stupid ****.

http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=446

http://singularityu.org/about/partners/

Examine that last one. See NASA in the list? No? Wonder why not?

:
:Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad?
:

No, I'm saying that I think you are. Seek help.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine