Valeev is by no means the worst offender

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

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

:
:
:kT wrote:
:
: Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Are you in fact saying that you think NASA is mad?
:
: No, he's saying he thinks _you're_ mad. And I suspect
: there are a lot of folk who think he's right.
:
: Oh, this is rich.
:
: Let's put Ian's 'madness' into a little perspective.
:
:[gibbering elided]
:
: Do you get it now, bitch?
:
ear me, yet _another_ nitwit?
:
:What have any of your political dibblings to do with Ian's
:inability to discuss science in a meaningful manner? From
:under which rock did you and your ADD slither?
:

He's another longtime loon in the sci.space groups, Deirdre. Virtually
everyone sane has killfiled him years ago.


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

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:3) I doubt whether all of this is about me.
:

It's about you, Ian, despite your paranoid delusions.

:
: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.
:

So how do you explain my calling you a loon BEFORE all that? I'm
prescient now?

:
: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.
:

No, Ian. IAN PARKER is a barker, as in 'barking mad'. It's all about
you. Seek help.

:
:Another possibility is that classified infrmation was being discussed
:in the group and their aim is to close the whole thing down.
:

So after making a series of statements as if they are facts, you now
offer "another possibility"?

Paranoid much?

:
: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.
:

You're nuts. This newsgroup and a lot of people in it have been on a
"collision course with the NASA mainstream" for over 20 years. The
newsgroup is still here. NASA has no say on whether it 'folds' or
not, since there's no connection between the two.

What is causing this newsgroup (and Usenet generally) to 'fold' is the
huge number of absolute loonytoons like you who spew reams of insanity
to it, making it less than useful for sane people.

:
:I just don't know.
:

Yeah, we know you don't. And that statement applies to pretty much
any field of endeavour anyone might care to name.

I'm still waiting for your list of publications and presentations,
Ian.

:
:On the surface they are simply ignorant
:individuals. How much biochemistry does Deidre know?
:

Why don't you ask her for her list of published articles? I could
point you to it if you like. It's not that hard to find, if only one
has a clue.

Yes, I know that lets you out, which is why I offered to help.

:
:I don't think that much.
:

We've noticed. However, I would have said you don't think AT ALL.

:
:As I said it was the Honeywell Generator.
:

If you said it, it is almost assuredly wrong.

You repeating yourself doesn't make your delusions have any additional
substance.


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

Ian claims not to have seen the following, so I thought I'd submit it
again. The very first paragraph demonstrates Ian's ignorance of fuel
cell technologies and it's downhill from there.

Personally, I think Ian claims not to have seen it because if he
admitted to seeing it he would have to respond to the questions raised
in it and he is simply unable to do that.

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Actually I would have a number od selling pitches. The first of these
:would be Platinum. Mr. Obama - you want green cars. A fuel cell
:demands a platinum catalyst.
:

No it doesn't. Use an alkali anion exchange membrane and replace the
platinum with nickel. What would you like to use your other nine
minutes and forty-five seconds for? I hope whatever it is is better
informed than this.

:
:Lithium - well that powers electronics
:but there ain't enough lithium for cars. Imagine every car in the
:world with a hydrogen fuel cell. Figure too that in a developing world
:there will be many more cars. Is there platinum? I don't think there
:is. What you need therefore is for NASA to be given a priority in
:emergent technology. That priority should be PLATINUM.
:

Asteroid mining is too far out. You need a nearer term goal. There
is also the problem of cost. If you go straight from nothing to
platinum mining in the asteroids you need to show cost recovery
numbers that include all your development costs plus launch costs plus
equipment costs plus....

Now price your platinum. You'll find that there's no way you can sell
it at the prices you'd have to charge for it.

:
:Now asteroids are the richest source of Pt. The abundance on Earth is
:the same, but it is all in the center of the Earth - not very
:accessible. Genetic engineering, nanotech. This approach could help
:you to get it.
:

So might magic and wishing real hard, Ian. Just how does "genetic
engineering, nanotech" help you in getting to the point of asteroid
mining for costs that aren't preposterously higher than those on
earth? You must be specific. That it "could" just doesn't cut any
ice in a real discussion.

What do you need? How does it help? What's the development timeline?
Why is it better than other paths?

And I DON'T mean your usual gibberish about nonexistent technologies.

:
:SSP - can be sold but I think Platinum should be the number one. This
:is what I was hoping someone or other would say. One you have an
:asteroid with galleries (technical mining term) you can then think
:about human spaceflight in the linger term. Galleries give wonderful
:radiation protection.
:

That's not how you'd mine asteroidal platinum, Ian. There wouldn't be
any 'galleries'. What's the radiation flux that far out? Why do you
think you need massive rock shielding to block it?

SSP is closer to practicality than mining platinum in the asteroids
and it isn't quite economically viable, either.

:
:This is what people really should have been saying. I was in fact
:hoping someone else would come out with that before I did.
:

Answer the preceding issues. I think you're obviously wrong, which
you will learn for yourself if you run the numbers involved. I
suspect no one has "come out with that before you did" because they
know that wanting to leap from essentially nothing to platinum mining
in the asteroids is a silly and unworkable idea, no matter what 'magic
technologies' you care to imagine.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw