CEV to be made commercially available

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 10:53:42 -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:

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.

Where else would people have an opportunity to discuss it, and
disagree? Do you realize how nutty you're sounding? Do you think
that I censor blog comments that disagree with me? If so, do you have
*any evidence at all* for it? It's a scurrilous charge.

I'm not making any charge. That's you being hysterical - you wanted an
example IIRC.

Nor am I sounding nutty.

The reality is not all people bother with responding, not all can,
Mark, for example, doesn't have a comments field. I discussed some
of the points in email directly with Mark and while we certainly have
argued here over political issues and I certainly disagree with him
over his foreign policy positions I found him to be logical, polite and
very clear. Something you are frequently not.

Especially, like now, when you are, as we say, "wound up".


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

Fine. Where's the rest of the data, Dave? Show me some *other*
discussion wherein Mark was declared right, and I mistaken, on that
subject.

"Delcared right"? By whom? In what context?

This is the real world, it's not a high school debating society. What
is right and wrong is highly fluid. It is certainly not decided by the
consensus of opinion in the comments section of Transterrestrial
Musings.

It's your perception that's wrong, not the rest of us.

Stick to engineering topics. At least you are generally safe in
absolutes then.

Thank f**k for that.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 10:59:35 -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:

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?

Of course. If there's something that I can do to improve the
situation, and also get paid, why should I not?

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.

I guess "explosive" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Gee. You think? DO you want to include a couple on un-called for
insults and name calling? [looks down post] - oh you did.


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.

"Agressively"? Do you know the meaning of the word? As I said, your
hyperbole amuses.

Just checked the dictionary, just case I was wrong. Nope.

In particular: Inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion:

If you don't find how you are behaving here, especially with your
comments about reading comprehension then you've a problem.

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.

A "raving free-market alt-space monster"?

That's how you come across.

Dave

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
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.

To be fair to Rand, I'm not all that fussed to go to the bother of
collating that particular data set and then deal with the obvious word
wrangling and denial it would lead to.

I've a pretty good idea of what the results would be.

Anyway, I'm now pretty tired of this and will try to go back to
ignoring Rand like I did after his comments on torture.

Dave

Dave O'Neill wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 10:59:35 -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:

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?

Of course. If there's something that I can do to improve the
situation, and also get paid, why should I not?

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.

I guess "explosive" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Gee. You think? DO you want to include a couple on un-called for
insults and name calling? [looks down post] - oh you did.


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.

"Agressively"? Do you know the meaning of the word? As I said, your
hyperbole amuses.

Just checked the dictionary, just case I was wrong. Nope.

In particular: Inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion:

If you don't find how you are behaving here, especially with your
comments about reading comprehension then you've a problem.

Please insert an "actively hostile" after the "behaving here".

I really should not press _post_ so quickly.

Dave

On 10 Dec 2005 10:07:50 -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.

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

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.

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..."

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

It was never there.

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), 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...

On 10 Dec 2005 10:13:43 -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.

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

Yes we were.

Not you, apparently.

This has got to be a really boring topic for the newsgroup, since only
readers of my blog have any idea what David is raving about now, and
I'm not going to discuss it here any more. In the unlikely event that
anyone is actually interested, here are the relevant posts:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...37.html#006037

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...79.html#006079

On 10 Dec 2005 10:53:42 -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:

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.

Where else would people have an opportunity to discuss it, and
disagree? Do you realize how nutty you're sounding? Do you think
that I censor blog comments that disagree with me? If so, do you have
*any evidence at all* for it? It's a scurrilous charge.

I can show you many blog threads in which people have disagreed with
me in comments. I always let them stand because a) they're
occasionally right, and I'm proven wrong or b) they are self-evident
of the lack of knowledge, logic (and often class) of the commenter.

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

Fine. Where's the rest of the data, Dave? Show me some *other*
discussion wherein Mark was declared right, and I mistaken, on that
subject.

rolling eyes

On 10 Dec 2005 10:59:35 -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:

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?

Of course. If there's something that I can do to improve the
situation, and also get paid, why should I not?

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.

I guess "explosive" is in the eyes of the beholder.

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.

"Agressively"? Do you know the meaning of the word? As I said, your
hyperbole amuses.

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.

A "raving free-market alt-space monster"?

Check your meds, Dave.

On 10 Dec 2005 11:14:01 -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:

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

Where else would people have an opportunity to discuss it, and
disagree? Do you realize how nutty you're sounding? Do you think
that I censor blog comments that disagree with me? If so, do you have
*any evidence at all* for it? It's a scurrilous charge.

I'm not making any charge. That's you being hysterical - you wanted an
example IIRC.

That's not hysteria. Putting it in all caps and punctuating it with
several exclamation marks could be categorized as that, but not the
calm, objective statement that I made.

"Explosive"..."hysterical"..."aggressive"..."monst er"...

I don't think that these words mean what you think they mean.

Nor am I sounding nutty.

OK. Whatever.

The reality is not all people bother with responding, not all can,
Mark, for example, doesn't have a comments field. I discussed some
of the points in email directly with Mark and while we certainly have
argued here over political issues and I certainly disagree with him
over his foreign policy positions I found him to be logical, polite and
very clear. Something you are frequently not.

Especially, like now, when you are, as we say, "wound up".

"Wound up." More words that you don't know what they mean,
apparently.

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

Fine. Where's the rest of the data, Dave? Show me some *other*
discussion wherein Mark was declared right, and I mistaken, on that
subject.

"Delcared right"? By whom? In what context?

This is the real world, it's not a high school debating society. What
is right and wrong is highly fluid. It is certainly not decided by the
consensus of opinion in the comments section of Transterrestrial
Musings.

No, it is decided by logic and facts. I laid them out. Mark had no
response, except to change the subject. No one disagreed.