Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:01:51 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Dana wrote:

As I understand it, the trouble with us humans is how easy it is for
us to fall for one extremist idea or another. There really appears not
to be a limit to what can be taken to an extreme, wether it be a
religious idea, a political one, communism - remember Pol Pot,
nationalism, environmentalism, etc., etc., etc.

A recurring problem on use net is frequent disrespect of people
towards other people whi have views they strongly disagree to.
Sometimes, people go so far as calling views they personally find
illogical a prove that the person in question is insane, an idiot or
vorse.

If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
only referring to the view not the person.

When a person repeatedly expresses views that are at variance with
reality or facts, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, cannot
seem to focus on or follow the subject, accuses people of writing
things that they didn't, etc., at some point, it becomes reasonable to
draw conclusions about the person himself. It's like a Turing Test,
except for stupidity, instead of intelligence and sapience.

When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of a long-time
pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance. It is also
generally a person who has repeatedly (and stupidly) insulted me, and
my intelligence, and character, over a long period of time. You are a
newcomer here. You shouldn't judge so quickly.

Then thank´s for the clarification.

Cheers, Einar

On 20 Aug, 21:25, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:01:51 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:







Dana wrote:

As I understand it, the trouble with us humans is how easy it is for
us to fall for one extremist idea or another. There really appears not
to be a limit to what can be taken to an extreme, wether it be a
religious idea, a political one, communism - remember Pol Pot,
nationalism, environmentalism, etc., etc., etc.

A recurring problem on use net is frequent disrespect of people
towards other people whi have views they strongly disagree to.
Sometimes, people go so far as calling views they personally find
illogical a prove that the person in question is insane, an idiot or
vorse.

If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
only referring to the view not the person.

When a person repeatedly expresses views that are at variance with
reality or facts, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, cannot
seem to focus on or follow the subject, accuses people of writing
things that they didn't, etc., at some point, it becomes reasonable to
draw conclusions about the person himself. It's like a Turing Test,
except for stupidity, instead of intelligence and sapience.

I also hear from another thread that you were making sick remarks
about dead asronauts. Could I say straight away that I want all
astronauts back safely on Earth. Preferably not to go up again but
that is another matter.

You are indeed an extremely unpleasant individual. What I say is
right. You keep on telling me it is untrue. Well Goebels said that if
you tell a lie, if its a big enough lie and if you say it often enough
sooner or later people will come to believe it.

When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of a long-time
pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance.

No it is you regularly using smear tactics.


It is also
generally a person who has repeatedly (and stupidly) insulted me, and
my intelligence, and character, over a long period of time. You are a
newcomer here. You shouldn't judge so quickly.- Hide quoted text -

Touché

But you started it. In fact the history of our postings has been
regular lies by yourself. When I produce references you shift your
ground.

An excellent example is on commercial spaceflioght. You say NASA is
badly managed and ought to be more commercial. True perhaps. You then
repeatedly refuse to say what you would do.

If in the British Parliament you have a no confidence motion. This
house has no confidence in Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, it means
you have an alternative (David Cameron?) waiting. You have "no
confidence in NASA" but you cannot produce any alternative and you
have the cheek to accuse me of fantasising.

I would like to know what NASA ought to be doing to encourage
commercial spaceflight - you canot offer any proposals.

All I have seen so far is this idiotic proposal for religious space
colonies. I just don't wear it.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

On 20 Aug, 21:06, Einar wrote:
Dana wrote:
Throughout history power hungry people have used religion in order to pursue
personal gains at the expense of the common person.
That is not to say that they were actually using religious beliefs to do
that, instead they were abusing religious beleifs.

As I understand it, the trouble with us humans is how easy it is for
us to fall for one extremist idea or another. There really appears not
to be a limit to what can be taken to an extreme, wether it be a
religious idea, a political one, communism - remember Pol Pot,
nationalism, environmentalism, etc., etc., etc.

A recurring problem on use net is frequent disrespect of people
towards other people who have views they strongly disagree with.
Sometimes, people go so far as calling views they personally find
illogical a prove that the person in question is insane, an idiot or
vorse.

If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
only referring to the view not the person.

I agree. I have only done it to people who have done it to me. Also I
wonder something. Fred McCall and Rand Simberg talk in very much the
same way. I wionder if this is a function of their background and
training. If it is it is extremely disturbing.


- Ian Parker

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:55:45 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
only referring to the view not the person.

I agree. I have only done it to people who have done it to me. Also I
wonder something. Fred McCall and Rand Simberg talk in very much the
same way. I wionder if this is a function of their background and
training. If it is it is extremely disturbing.

Well, Ian, there is no question at all that you are extremely
disturbed. But I seriously doubt that *I'm* the cause--it seems quite
likely to me that this disturbance predates your encounter with me by
years, if not decades. I think, in fact, that you confuse cause and
effect.

"Hop David" wrote in message
...
Dave O'Neill wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Dave O'Neill" wrote:



Poor Dave. People keep insulting him BACK.

How does pointing out the facts make me "a rather nasty piece of
work", unless facts are somehow anathema to you?


Well, firstly both you and Rand have a rather weird view of "facts", and
secondly you started with the name calling.

Check out Fred's posts. If he's still sticking to his old, tired habits,
about 80% of his posts will be content-free, lame insults exchanged with
Chomko. Another 15% will be the same but with other idiots and trolls. A
small fraction will be on-topic. But this small fraction tend to be
unoriginal and/or ill informed.

He reminds me a lot of Terry Austin actually. He'll start with some
marginal content, and maybe even pretend to have a discussion, and then
it'll be a body slam with a barage of insults.

I've a fairly thick skin myself, but you seem to be really easy to get to
start with real ad hominems.

Rand's much more fun than you, he keeps it civil for at least a few posts
before he starts calling people names. You just seem to be confused.

Rand is capable of original thought and is often well informed. If this
weren't so, his B.S. would be intolerable and he would be in my killfile
along whith Chomko, McCall, Guth et al.

Rand has got worse over time. I remember that certainly pre-2000 he was
much more focused on topic. I think he seriously lost the plot in the run
up to Iraq and the politics around that have distorted things ever since.

He's also got an unfortunate, in my opinion, blindspot about space tourism,
but he's not alone there and I hope I'm wrong about that too.

You're also capable of providing useful information and original insights.
For this reason I'll tolerate your wasting time with Fred.

I think I've had enough. My tolerance is lower than it was a decade ago.

Dave

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:29:31 -0700, 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 in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:34:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
m...
"Dave O'Neill" wrote:

:
:Sorry, I'm not clear how repeating what somebody has said publically
in
many
:forums over many years counts as an "ad hominem" - the source itself
and
:Murdoch both really do bring the veracity into question all by
themselves.
:

You obviously don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

First hint: It's not a noun.

And so, the context matters and in this context what Einar said isn't an
ad
hominem, except under some really really twisted logic which you and
Rand
seem to share.

Of *course* it's an ad hominem argument. It's a textbook example of
one. When one's response to a debating point is to impugn the source,
that is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

Rupert Murdoch is a ******, you can't trust him in anything - is an ad
homimen. I've not attacked the argument about the BBC, I've just attacked
Rupert.

To what end? What does what you think about Rupert Murdoch have to do
with the subject at hand?

Einar made a statement about Murdoch, which you called an adhomiem. I
pointed out that it is not, it's a position of fact.

Einar was, it appears, incorrect in assuming that the article was in a
Murdoch publication. It's not, but it does, as a publication have a rather
chequered history of flirting with right wing positions. Actually reading
it is pretty unpleasant, in my opinion, and it drives me mad that my sister
always takes it.

Similar articles about the bias of the BBC have, however, come out of
Murdoch and his stable of publications so it's not entirely a surprise that
Einar made that mistake.

Einar was using it to defend the BBC.

However, Rupert Murdoch has said he doesn't like the BBC and would like it
disbanded (paraphrasing the argument in this thread), and here's some
links
to Google where he and people who work for him or are related by blood
have
said the same thing, is not an ad hominem - unless you're distorting it to
the point that anything anybody says that you don't like can be used that
way.

That can all be true, and it remains a poor argument against the cited
article. Is it Einar's or your claim that the paper is lying about
what the BBC employees said? If so, whining about Rupert Murdoch
certainly does nothing to support it. That's simply a classic ad
hominem (and thus fallacious) argument.

I'm not referring to the article, although I've told you before to stop
referencing the Daily Mail because it's a dire source of news.

Einar made a comment about Rupert Murdoch which you incorrectly said was an
ad hominem.

With regard to your other point, the BBC employees 26,000 people (possibly
more) - I'd find it shocking if, out of that lot, you couldn't find some
people who were unhappy with the organisation.

Dave

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:01:51 -0700, in a place far, far away, Einar
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Dana wrote:

As I understand it, the trouble with us humans is how easy it is for
us to fall for one extremist idea or another. There really appears not
to be a limit to what can be taken to an extreme, wether it be a
religious idea, a political one, communism - remember Pol Pot,
nationalism, environmentalism, etc., etc., etc.

A recurring problem on use net is frequent disrespect of people
towards other people whi have views they strongly disagree to.
Sometimes, people go so far as calling views they personally find
illogical a prove that the person in question is insane, an idiot or
vorse.

If you read through the posts here you will find a number of examples
of what I am talking about, words like idiot, insane, stupit being
thrown about used as a form of a personal attack. Really, there is
very, very rarelly if ever a reason to speak in that manner, even
though you find the view of the other person stupit or even
distasteful. Mind you, I think it´s ok to say you think that a view
being expressed is stupid, if you are careful to make sure you are
only referring to the view not the person.

When a person repeatedly expresses views that are at variance with
reality or facts, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, cannot
seem to focus on or follow the subject, accuses people of writing
things that they didn't, etc., at some point, it becomes reasonable to
draw conclusions about the person himself. It's like a Turing Test,
except for stupidity, instead of intelligence and sapience.

When I call a person an idiot, or nuts, it because of a long-time
pattern of idiocy or nuttiness, not an isolated instance. It is also
generally a person who has repeatedly (and stupidly) insulted me, and
my intelligence, and character, over a long period of time. You are a
newcomer here. You shouldn't judge so quickly.

Oh ******** Rand!

You have accused all sorts of people of all sorts of crimes imaginary and
real over the years, normally when they won't bow down and accept your
"facts" as anything other than your opinion.

When you stick to actual space policy and engineering issues you're almost
always articulate and, in my opinion, interesting to read. As we stray into
Space Tourism you take on the passion of a zealot and become just plain
unresaonable in your analysis of the "facts". By the time we read politics
you're way out into the fringe of libertarian policy which more resembles a
cult than a sane political system.

When this is pointed out to you, the discussion invariable decends to a "oh
yes it is!", "oh no it isn't" level of insults. I'm not even sure you
notice you do it anymore.

Dave

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


:Sorry, I'm not clear how repeating what somebody has said publically
in
many
:forums over many years counts as an "ad hominem" - the source itself
and
:Murdoch both really do bring the veracity into question all by
themselves.
:

You obviously don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

First hint: It's not a noun.

And so, the context matters and in this context what Einar said isn't an
ad
hominem, except under some really really twisted logic which you and
Rand
seem to share.

Of *course* it's an ad hominem argument. It's a textbook example of
one. When one's response to a debating point is to impugn the source,
that is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

Rupert Murdoch is a ******, you can't trust him in anything - is an ad
homimen. I've not attacked the argument about the BBC, I've just attacked
Rupert.

To what end? What does what you think about Rupert Murdoch have to do
with the subject at hand?

Einar made a statement about Murdoch, which you called an adhomiem. I
pointed out that it is not, it's a position of fact.

If (in fact) it was a "position of fact," it was a position of fact
that had no bearing whatsoever on the discussion, unless one
proscribes to ad hominem arguments.

Einar was, it appears, incorrect in assuming that the article was in a
Murdoch publication.

Even if so, it was an ad hominem argument.

rest of irrational and irrelevant nuttiness snipped

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:49:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


You're also capable of providing useful information and original insights.
For this reason I'll tolerate your wasting time with Fred.

I think I've had enough. My tolerance is lower than it was a decade ago.

And you think mine isn't?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


:Sorry, I'm not clear how repeating what somebody has said
publically
in
many
:forums over many years counts as an "ad hominem" - the source
itself
and
:Murdoch both really do bring the veracity into question all by
themselves.
:

You obviously don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

First hint: It's not a noun.

And so, the context matters and in this context what Einar said isn't
an
ad
hominem, except under some really really twisted logic which you and
Rand
seem to share.

Of *course* it's an ad hominem argument. It's a textbook example of
one. When one's response to a debating point is to impugn the source,
that is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

Rupert Murdoch is a ******, you can't trust him in anything - is an ad
homimen. I've not attacked the argument about the BBC, I've just
attacked
Rupert.

To what end? What does what you think about Rupert Murdoch have to do
with the subject at hand?

Einar made a statement about Murdoch, which you called an adhomiem. I
pointed out that it is not, it's a position of fact.

If (in fact) it was a "position of fact," it was a position of fact
that had no bearing whatsoever on the discussion, unless one
proscribes to ad hominem arguments.

Einar was, it appears, incorrect in assuming that the article was in a
Murdoch publication.

Even if so, it was an ad hominem argument.

rest of irrational and irrelevant nuttiness snipped

You see this is why people get annoyed with you.

You've fixated on defending a stupid position long after other people would
admit they'd made a mistake, and you then compound your errror with an
acussation of "nuttiness".

Rupert Murdoch detests the BBC is a statement of fact, nothing more nothing
less. Your attack on that statement is mistaken regardless of anything
else.

Dave