Valeev is by no means the worst offender

On 23 Feb, 19:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
The fundamental issue is that Fred and Deirdre are posting in a
totally destructive way. They have nothing really to say about NASA or
the singularity university. I believe they are attempting to sabotage
the new management of NASA.

Aye, right...and when we're done with that we're
going to overthrow the government of the Soviet
Union. *

Good lord, Ian, can't you even _visit_ reality?

You are a dispicable character. You are trying to take away someone
else's identity. You pretended to be a biochemist, but you arn't. I
doubt strongly whether you are even a woman. You live under a web of
lies, deceit and pseudonyms.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

On 23 Feb, 19:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
The fundamental issue is that Fred and Deirdre are posting in a
totally destructive way. They have nothing really to say about NASA or
the singularity university. I believe they are attempting to sabotage
the new management of NASA.

Aye, right...and when we're done with that we're
going to overthrow the government of the Soviet
Union. *

Good lord, Ian, can't you even _visit_ reality?

You are a dispicable character. You are trying to take away someone
else's identity.

Really? Whose identity might that be?

You pretended to be a biochemist, but you arn't.

Actually, I don't "pretend to be a biochemist" and have never
claimed to be one.

I
doubt strongly whether you are even a woman.

Hm. Well, I've no doubt that you're a child, Ian.

You live under a web of
lies, deceit and pseudonyms.

Hardly, but you're in no position to comprehend that since
you apparently wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the
ankle.

Deirdre

Robert Collins wrote:

Manned space missions to the planets are absolutely vital to the long-
term success of space exploration.

Perhaps, but a lot of people would settle for "unmanned
and returning with samples" in the absence of anything
else.

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:

That's really too bad. You could have had a really interesting
thread here yakking with Ms. Douglas.
I don't think that was ever an option with Ian...he
makes outrageous statements...a veritable tsunami
of prose...but when it's pointed out to him that said
statements are flawed, instead of defending or sup-
porting his claims scientifically, he takes off on an
obfuscating tangent and/or attacks the person
challenging him.

IMHO, the only thing interesting here is his conceit
of himself.
Some inane posts produce interesting discussions because other
readers get curious and start posting, leaving the ahem
think-challenged behind.

My guess is that this particular think-challenged soul is the
sort who will interrupt and disrupt any discussion that takes
place without him...rather like having a toddler in the room.
While I agree in theory with your premise, I suspect that given
the living entities involved, it's impossible to pull off in prac-
tice. :-(


Oh, but that's why newsgroups work. No whinging sounds interrupt
an exchange.

/BAH

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
:
:Robert Collins wrote:
:
: Manned space missions to the planets are absolutely vital to the long-
: term success of space exploration.
:
:Perhaps, but a lot of people would settle for "unmanned
:and returning with samples" in the absence of anything
:else.
:

Perhaps, but that's not the way it typically works. Historically,
when manned space funding goes down unmanned space funding goes down
MORE.

Some day planetary scientists who keep trying to gut manned space for
their own benefit will figure this out.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

I suspect it might have something to do with ego...the few
I've run across aren't (and haven't) actually worked in science
and so they seem to think there's something demeaning about
doing benchwork...especially ghasp! in a wet lab. In their
minds, the hands-on stuff is done to order (their order) by a
technician while they sit at a deck and think Big Ideas.
But that is no fun at all. Testing your ideas and seeing if they
work, or more interestingly not work, is part of the fun.

I don't know if it's "more interestingly", but it's certainly
"more likely"...particularly if one is working with living
entities with their own agendas. Microbes can be such
notional wee things. :-)


I said "more interestingly" because most efforts stop and
tidy up after something works. IOW, no more work at finding
something that works. But that may not be the case in a
science lab. It certainly is the case in business.

/BAH

Ian Parker wrote:
On 23 Feb, 12:06, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
kT wrote:
snip
Honestly, if science wasn't fun, the tedium would drive you insane ...
Got _that_ in one. And the pay usually sucks...no one does
this to get rich...but the toys can make up for a lot of tedium
and late hours...at least they have so far.
What I don't understand is why the crackpots avoid all lab work.
The reason to take science classes is to be able to play in the
labs. The lab class times were never long enough.
Their loss, our gain. :-)
I suspect it might have something to do with ego...the few
I've run across aren't (and haven't) actually worked in science
and so they seem to think there's something demeaning about
doing benchwork...especially ghasp! in a wet lab. In their
minds, the hands-on stuff is done to order (their order) by a
technician while they sit at a deck and think Big Ideas.
But that is no fun at all. Testing your ideas and seeing if they
work, or more interestingly not work, is part of the fun.



I don't know about you, but I didn't go into this field to sit
behind a desk or rot in meetings (which is not to say I don't
have to do both on occasion)...I chose this path so I could
get paid for satisfying my own curiosity while playing with
some of the most expensive toys in town. So far, that plan
has panned out nicely. :-)
Very nice :-). I was going to grow up to be a marine biologist
but got side-traced and stumbled into the computer biz. In order
to get things fixed "right", I went to work for a computer
manufacturer. Every machine room was a lab.

The fundamental issue is that Fred and Deirdre are posting in a
totally destructive way.

Actually, they are not. They have asked you for one citation (do
you know what that means?). And they've been chatting while waiting
for the answer.

I don't know enough about the tech to even ask a question. That's
why I'm disappointed that you refuse to discuss the topic.

snip

/BAH

Ian Parker wrote:
On 23 Feb, 19:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
The fundamental issue is that Fred and Deirdre are posting in a
totally destructive way. They have nothing really to say about NASA or
the singularity university. I believe they are attempting to sabotage
the new management of NASA.
Aye, right...and when we're done with that we're
going to overthrow the government of the Soviet
Union.

Good lord, Ian, can't you even _visit_ reality?

You are a dispicable character. You are trying to take away someone
else's identity. You pretended to be a biochemist, but you arn't. I
doubt strongly whether you are even a woman.

Ah, so you do know you are completely wrong.

Questioning a female's sex is always an indication that the poster
doesn't know anything and knows he doesn't know it.

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

My guess is that this particular think-challenged soul is the
sort who will interrupt and disrupt any discussion that takes
place without him...rather like having a toddler in the room.
While I agree in theory with your premise, I suspect that given
the living entities involved, it's impossible to pull off in prac-
tice. :-(


Oh, but that's why newsgroups work. No whinging sounds interrupt
an exchange.

Evidence would seem to suggest that most newsgroups
_don't_ work...in fact, most are so cluttered with noise
the signal is pretty much lost.

BTW, why didn't you go after the Marine Bio?

Deirdre

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 23 Feb, 19:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
: The fundamental issue is that Fred and Deirdre are posting in a
: totally destructive way. They have nothing really to say about NASA or
: the singularity university. I believe they are attempting to sabotage
: the new management of NASA.
:
: Aye, right...and when we're done with that we're
: going to overthrow the government of the Soviet
: Union. *
:
: Good lord, Ian, can't you even _visit_ reality?
:
:You are a dispicable character. You are trying to take away someone
:else's identity. You pretended to be a biochemist, but you arn't. I
:doubt strongly whether you are even a woman. You live under a web of
:lies, deceit and pseudonyms.
:

Uh, unfortunately for you, Ian, there are people who have met her and
know who she is.

She doesn't pretend to be a biochemist. She pretends to be a
geochemical microbiologist. Do you not know what a 'biochemist' is?

If you think she's "trying to take away someone else's identity", why
don't you email that person?

You're a liar and a buffoon, Ian. I still don't believe there's a
real person involved in your postings other than intermittently. No
real human being could be as stupid as you appear to be.


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