CEV to be made commercially available

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

Rand, to me you come across as someone with a strong sense of logic, an
even stronger set of core beliefs, and little tolerance for non sequitur.

I suspect you have the same character flaw I try hard to suppress in
myself: the inability to see things from another person's viewpoint when
that viewpoint seems to be based on assumptions contrary to established
fact. There are two problems with that. First, there are occasionally
alternate interpretations of reality that are both compatible with the
way things are on the surface yet contradict each other in underlying
ways. Second, sometimes "established fact" turns out to be incorrect,
annoying as that can be.

So while I agree with you on many things, I find it irritating when you
dismiss people out of hand because what they say doesn't fit your
conclusions. It might be a useful exercise for you to try to find
specific errors in their assumptions, rather than assume that their
logic is faulty. And at least entertain the possibility that there are
fundamentally different goals pushing the adoption of specific
assumptions, and that the argument would be more productive if it were
shifted to the merits of the goals themselves rather than ways to attain
them.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:34:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Nope. Just a select few. Most are reasonable.

Really? You know Rand, you're supposed to be a smart guy.

Not to listen to my detractors...

When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:06:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Alan
Anderson made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

Rand, to me you come across as someone with a strong sense of logic, an
even stronger set of core beliefs, and little tolerance for non sequitur.

Good diagnosis.

I suspect you have the same character flaw I try hard to suppress in
myself: the inability to see things from another person's viewpoint when
that viewpoint seems to be based on assumptions contrary to established
fact. There are two problems with that. First, there are occasionally
alternate interpretations of reality that are both compatible with the
way things are on the surface yet contradict each other in underlying
ways. Second, sometimes "established fact" turns out to be incorrect,
annoying as that can be.

Yes, it is, though when someone can establish that it is, I've been
actually known (contrary to some of my detractors) to acknowledge it
(e.g., WMD in Iraq).

So while I agree with you on many things, I find it irritating when you
dismiss people out of hand because what they say doesn't fit your
conclusions. It might be a useful exercise for you to try to find
specific errors in their assumptions, rather than assume that their
logic is faulty. And at least entertain the possibility that there are
fundamentally different goals pushing the adoption of specific
assumptions, and that the argument would be more productive if it were
shifted to the merits of the goals themselves rather than ways to attain
them.

Gosh, what a shock. Useful criticism.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:27:35 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


No, actually I didn't. That's how you read it and your mind warped it
in the process.

I believe I accused you of suckling at the government teat - in
particular government space acitivty which you then slag off.

Quote: "you certainly are prepared to suckle from the government teat
to keep a roof over your head."

Which translated into: "working for big aerospace" when parsed through
your brain.

I was specifically referring to your work with government space
agencies which I believe you said you have been doing around fuel
depots?

No. Unless by "work with government space agencies" you mean work for
government contractors with government contracts. Is that "suckling
from the government teat"?

Private companies can contract from the government, I've few issues
with that. I was thinking, specifically of the NASA study work you
mentioned you had done.

snip

I see no issue with you working for Big Aerospace companies in your
position, but I do find given your almost explosive reaction to
anything tainted with government direct cash and government space that
this is a little hypocritical. A trait you seem to hate in others.

My "almost explosive reaction"? Can you actually point out an example
of such an "almost explosive reaction"?

I refer you to the irrate flame wars that follow you all over this
newsgroup. Your almost compulsive need to respond to every micro
thread with every person who has the rank audacity to disagree with one
of your positions.

More nonsense and hysteria on your part, apparently. Some of my best
friends work for the government, and the government space programs.
Sorry to disappoint.

Jolly good for them, a fact which is utterly irrevelent to this
conversation and thread. But a nice distraction.

You've sucessfully moved the topic away from the substantive too. Well
done.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:31:36 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


Given what you, yourself call people on and off Usenews - thinking for
a moment of your rabid diatribes about what an idiot and mental
deficient Mark Whittington is

I've never called him either.

You called him "clueless" on several occasions on November 28 on your
Blog. You questioned his reading comprehension then and on several
other occasions. You accused him of "fantasies" about what you write
then too.

All of which were demonstrably true.

No, they may be true to you but they're certainly not _true_ to other
people. Heh. We're back to Randian Cows again.

I cited what I wrote. I cited what he wrote about I wrote. I pointed
out the major disconnect between the two.

Yes you believe that you did.

He had no substantive
response (other than gainsaying denial), simply moving on to his next
fantasy.

No, actually he had many responses which he dealt with in detail on
your Blog and his own Blog.

Most were able to follow the discussion.

Yes we were.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:


Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

I count 10 including ignoring some of the stranger handles and "odd"
posters who hang around here.

I'm basing my list on: me, Pat, Scott, Alan F, Marcus L, Eric, OM,
Greg, Herb, Sander.

All of the above have had strong to violent disagreements with you over
your debating technique and your view of the world both in space and on
Earth.

Anybody have any stats on how big this news group actually is?

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:


Yes you believe that you did.

With good cause, and no one disagreed, other than Mark.

Which means precisely nothing in the context of a Blog comments thread
- especially your blog.

And we're also back to how you chose to sample data to support your
perception.

Dave

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:19:21 -0600, Dave O'Neill wrote
(in article . com):

Anybody have any stats on how big this news group actually is?

Someone who archives the group (*cough* OM *cough*) ought to download
statnews.pl and analyze the posts.

--
Herb

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
~ RAH

Rand Simberg wrote:


Private companies can contract from the government, I've few issues
with that. I was thinking, specifically of the NASA study work you
mentioned you had done.

I did it as an employee of a private company. I'm not a civil
servant.

Never said you were. So, as an employee of a private company you
accepted a contract role to work for a government agency which you
spend a lot of your time decrying for it's waste of money of your own
free will and volition?

I see no issue with you working for Big Aerospace companies in your
position, but I do find given your almost explosive reaction to
anything tainted with government direct cash and government space that
this is a little hypocritical. A trait you seem to hate in others.

My "almost explosive reaction"? Can you actually point out an example
of such an "almost explosive reaction"?

I refer you to the irrate flame wars that follow you all over this
newsgroup.

Nothing "explosive" about that. Your hyperbole continues to amuse.

(glances at the thread) - looks pretty explosive from here and that's
without reading the content.

Without including my current posts, you've attracted half a dozen other
people, most of whom do not share your position, and to whom you have
replied, sometimes agressively.

I accept that you don't realise that this is how you behave, but you
should and you should do something about it.

Your almost compulsive need to respond to every micro
thread with every person who has the rank audacity to disagree with one
of your positions.

If I really did that, I'd have no time for anything else. Idiots
abound.

More nonsense and hysteria on your part, apparently. Some of my best
friends work for the government, and the government space programs.
Sorry to disappoint.

Jolly good for them, a fact which is utterly irrevelent to this
conversation and thread.

It was a direct response to your hyperbolic and hilarious statement
regarding: "your almost explosive reaction to anything tainted with
government direct cash and government space..."

Then we have a split personality - the online rand Simberg is a raving
free-market alt-space monster whereas Rand the person is obviously a
great pall and probably kind to kittens.

You'd not be the only person I know like that, but it's still sad.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 10:19:21 -0800, 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:


Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

I count 10 including ignoring some of the stranger handles and "odd"
posters who hang around here.

I'm basing my list on: me, Pat, Scott, Alan F, Marcus L, Eric, OM,
Greg, Herb, Sander.

The only ones I'd put on that list are you, Scott, and Eric. The
others I often disagree with, but they're generally logical, and can
clearly communicate in English (both reading and writing),

Something you fail to do on a frequent basis - according to the
comments made by the 10 up there, and in the case of this thread, 4 of
them - 2 of whom you don't seem to have a problem with who obviously
were just passing by and thought they'd mention it.

and don't
get hung up on non-sequiturs. In any event, even if that were the
list, as I said, they can be counted on my fingers...

Glancing at the list, there's at least another 3 or 4 having "spats"
with you about one thing or another.

You're a nasty piece of work on line when people disagree with you.
You can pretend it's us all you like, but it doesn't alter things.

Dave