Global wireless hotspot

On 12 Feb, 23:47, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:32:13AM -0800, Ian Parker wrote:
Look you wrote the following
[snip]
No you seem to be talking about informational associaivity. I think

I wrote the term "informational associativity" whereas you did not in your
continuation of the subthread. *Instead you distorted what I wrote (in
several ways) while presumably expecting a measured civil response. *I am
beginning to suspect that you didn't quite get what you wanted. *The
insulting air of your replies merely indicates that you should be killfiled
as a lost cause. *There are certain to be others here who are able to use
reason in a public newsgroup without losing control of their childish ego
to dominance games.

the mistake we both made was to assume that the discussion could
remain civilised in this usergroup. You seem to have completely back
on what you originally said. I in fact agree with what you are saying
but not the way you are saying it. Rand is a person who regularly goes
back on what he has said.

A civilized discussion is trivial to acheive. *Your problem is that it
requires two or more co-operating individuals for such a thing to occur.
Evidently your ego or politics or both are incompatible with civilized
discussion unless there is a radical recapitulation in the accepted meaning
of "civilized".

That and accusing people of paedophilia completely out of the blue.

What's the age of consent in your neck of the woods, Ian? *Low enough to
satisfy the needs of your superiority complex?

C'mom what is it? What research are you doing? I don't think you are
doing any at all by the look of it.

Why must I be conducting research of some kind? *As a space enthusiast and
amateur futurist the topic of space politics interests me. *

Wallace Wright

What IS your research? Where have you published, or where do you
intend to publish?


- Ian Parker

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:59:33AM -0800, Ian Parker wrote:
What IS your research? Where have you published, or where do you
intend to publish?

As you are probably aware that would be problematic. Were I to foolishly
disclose my publications (if any) to you, it would surely compromise the
integrity of my pseudonym. And right now I find that I feel more
comfortable using a pseudonym on Usenet. The "Best Wishes to Bob Rutan"
thread has a discussion concerning Usenet that illustrates some of the very
reasons I have for preferring anonymity.


Wallace Wright

On 14 Feb, 01:57, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:59:33AM -0800, Ian Parker wrote:
What IS your research? Where have you published, or where do you
intend to publish?

As you are probably aware that would be problematic. *Were I to foolishly
disclose my publications (if any) to you, it would surely compromise the
integrity of my pseudonym. *And right now I find that I feel more
comfortable using a pseudonym on Usenet. *The "Best Wishes to Bob Rutan"
thread has a discussion concerning Usenet that illustrates some of the very
reasons I have for preferring anonymity.

Wallace Wright

Very convenient. I do not believe people should use pseudonymes when
writing in a discussion group of this sort.

If you were discussing Islam, Al Qaeda etc. and your life was in
danger the situation would be different. Nobody in this group is going
to kill you at least not literally.


- Ian Parker

In article , Eric Chomko writes:
[...] I don't think the country would elect a dog-
catcher from Texas on the national scene.

That would be Lyndon Johnson, of course.

No chance of that, given that he's long since deceased.

Something about those Texans, always wanting to come out with their guns
blazing... Related to Sam Houston, and the Alamo, no doubt.

--
George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org

"Never trust a politician who's never run for dogcatcher^H^H^H... sheriff"

Eric

On Feb 11, 6:54 pm, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:40:10AM +0000, Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:42:40 +0100 (CET), in a place far, far away,
Wallace Wright made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:08:19PM +0000, Rand Simberg wrote:
I am finding it difficult to get beyond your sudden-onset disarticulation,

Don't say I didn't warn you. Not that there's anything "sudden-onset"
about it...

He starts off sounding reasonable, and in some of his other messages he
presents as halfway normal. Some strange mental pathology must be at work
to cause the incoherence, and all I can offer is the suggestion that there
are topics he is unable to defend, but which he must nevertheless maintain
a position on. The conflict that arises is then resolved with diversionary
tactics of which spelling mistakes are one. That is my quick assey of the
symptoms and should not be taken as being representative of a professional
opinion. I wonder if the poor fellow realizes how foolish he looks?

Based on years of experience...no. The tragic thing is that he is not
only unable to recognize his own problem, but also unable to recognize
it even in the face of multiple people pointing it out, and no one
supporting him. That, unfortunately, is the intrinsic nature of a
mental illness.

Years, you say? And his posts all follow the same dull arc? That's not
merely pathalogical, it's creepy. Obviously he knows enough to be
dangerous, as they say, but not enough to be much more than a pernicious
nuisance. In a newsgroup concerning space exploration and its politics
today you might think a certain intrinsic decorum would affect his
attitude. Of course, a mental disorder knows nothing of decorum or
normality so anything is, indeed, possible in that instance.

Also unfortunately, that's the case for too many on Usenet, which is
the only outlet for such people. I could name (other) names, at least
for regular posters here, but in the interest of mercy, I won't...

That's decent of you, but sometimes I think it's better if afflicted
persons are told in no uncertain terms that their head-gaskets are leaking
oil and that they should seek the services of a good mechanic (psychiatrist)
before the engine blows. Sometimes that ends up winding them up a little
tighter, but it's worth the risk.



That bit of blue-sky speculation arrived in my newsreader accompanied by
the sharp odour of ass, as if you had pulled it out of your own only
minutes before. If you have special knowledge of black military projects
that are undertaken without proper oversight or constraint, I would be very
interested in learning of them. Short of that there is no compelling
reason to flatter your delusions with further discussion.

Sorry it took you so long to figure it out. Sorry my warnings didn't
help... ;-)

It was simply easier to continue the discussion in-progress to see what he
would say, although you are certinaly correct to make the warning in the
first place. If he were more artful he could waste considerably more of
people's valuable time to no effect other than the cheap thrill he must
gain from seeing his name mentioned and having his trivial questions
answered.

Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for him) "artful" is not a very
accurate description of him.

Subtle as a brick.

Wallace Wright

Our Willie.Moo only likes to do whatever his mindset has thought of,
even if it's been done far better before, or is way spendy, polluting
and just plain stupid is just fine and dandy by the standards of lord
Mook.

Even Google/NOVA is going to be using blimp/balloon transponders for
expanding their global network, and once again it certainly wasn't of
their original idea to begin with, but it's by far the right thing to
be doing instead of further cluttering up LEO or much less of anything
GSO.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 12, 3:47 pm, Wallace Wright wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:32:13AM -0800, Ian Parker wrote:
Look you wrote the following
[snip]
No you seem to be talking about informational associaivity. I think

I wrote the term "informational associativity" whereas you did not in your
continuation of the subthread. Instead you distorted what I wrote (in
several ways) while presumably expecting a measured civil response. I am
beginning to suspect that you didn't quite get what you wanted. The
insulting air of your replies merely indicates that you should be killfiled
as a lost cause. There are certain to be others here who are able to use
reason in a public newsgroup without losing control of their childish ego
to dominance games.

the mistake we both made was to assume that the discussion could
remain civilised in this usergroup. You seem to have completely back
on what you originally said. I in fact agree with what you are saying
but not the way you are saying it. Rand is a person who regularly goes
back on what he has said.

A civilized discussion is trivial to acheive. Your problem is that it
requires two or more co-operating individuals for such a thing to occur.
Evidently your ego or politics or both are incompatible with civilized
discussion unless there is a radical recapitulation in the accepted meaning
of "civilized".

That and accusing people of paedophilia completely out of the blue.

What's the age of consent in your neck of the woods, Ian? Low enough to
satisfy the needs of your superiority complex?

C'mom what is it? What research are you doing? I don't think you are
doing any at all by the look of it.

Why must I be conducting research of some kind? As a space enthusiast and
amateur futurist the topic of space politics interests me.

Wallace Wright

I 100% agree, that "as a space enthusiast and amateur futurist" is
simply a very good and perfectly honest mindset to cultivate.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 1, 10:43*am, (George Cornelius)
wrote:
In article , Eric Chomko writes:

* * * * * * * * * * [...] I don't think the country would elect a dog-
catcher from Texas on the national scene.

That would be Lyndon Johnson, of course.

No chance of that, given that he's long since deceased.

Right.


Something about those Texans, always wanting to come out with their guns
blazing... Related to Sam Houston, and the Alamo, no doubt.


Yet, its borders are still over-run with Mexicans. Seems like if
nothing else, guns blazing, etc., they failed...

And as much as they act like they can do it all alone they still need
help from the federal governement.

On Mar 3, 8:56 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:43 am, (George Cornelius)
wrote:

In article , Eric Chomko writes:

[...] I don't think the country would elect a dog-
catcher from Texas on the national scene.

That would be Lyndon Johnson, of course.

No chance of that, given that he's long since deceased.

Right.



Something about those Texans, always wanting to come out with their guns
blazing... Related to Sam Houston, and the Alamo, no doubt.

Yet, its borders are still over-run with Mexicans. Seems like if
nothing else, guns blazing, etc., they failed...

And as much as they act like they can do it all alone they still need
help from the federal governement.

I posted the win-win solution as of years ago. Never mind, because it
only would have worked w/o a drop of blood or one lost dollar.
.. - Brad Guth