CEV to be made commercially available

Rand Simberg wrote:


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

What "facts" did you lay out? The "fact" that in the timescale there
will be private enterprise manned missions to the moon, that they'll be
met by the staff of the "lunar Hilton"? They're not facts - like the
rest of your arguments, they are suppositions based on your analysis of
the available data.

Mark, and others, have looked at that data and reached different
conclusions.

You laid out your opinion, as you so often do, that people on your blog
didn't disagree is irrelevent to whether or not you or Mark are right
about that opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour Alan remarked on and you look all
the more foolish for it. Stop the invective, the "hyperbole" and start
debating again. When you stick to facts as you can do, you're actually
quite sane.

And now, I've had enough of you for 2005. Happy New Year.

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), and don't
get hung up on non-sequiturs.

The point being debated is not whether we can clearly communicate
in English, but how you respond Rand. You told me I was delusional
because I didn't know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction just prior to the war in 2003. You told me I was an
idiot because I was claiming that we don't just hunt fish we also
farm them. I could give a long list of such *debating techniques*
you use, it sours the news group, and it lowers the quality of
your posts.


Alain Fournier

JRS: In article ,
dated Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:59:27 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy,
Herb Schaltegger posted :
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?

One should generally not use "this news group" in a cross-posted
article. I'm considering it to mean news:sci.space.policy.


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

No need to assume that archiving necessarily involves statnews.pl.


I have here 11 days of articles, 640 of them, omitting a few manifestly
troll-type threads : 1588176 bytes.

There's about 115 distinct authors; the Prolific 3 are
Henry 56
Rand 53
Ed 39

When I did the same a day or two ago, Rand was well ahead of Henry.

We all know how good Henry's articles are : it's a pity that there's
someone who posts about as much but does so without even achieving, /in
toto/, the value of the least of Henry's articles AFAIR.


AFAICS, not only does Jonathan Silverlight have the longest name, but he
certainly has the longest name-and-address and probably the longest
address.


13 authors posted 50% of the articles between them. Under 20 averaged
more than one per day.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html - Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

In message , Dr John Stockton
writes
JRS: In article ,
dated Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:59:27 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy,
Herb Schaltegger posted :
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?

One should generally not use "this news group" in a cross-posted
article. I'm considering it to mean news:sci.space.policy.


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



AFAICS, not only does Jonathan Silverlight have the longest name, but he
certainly has the longest name-and-address and probably the longest
address.

Fame at last :-)

Is there any way of discovering how many lurkers there are?

On 11 Dec 2005 01:57:52 -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:


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

What "facts" did you lay out? The "fact" that in the timescale there
will be private enterprise manned missions to the moon, that they'll be
met by the staff of the "lunar Hilton"?

No, I laid out the facts about the false things that Mark attributed
to me.

Apparently you didn't even read the thread.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:30:52 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


The point being debated is not whether we can clearly communicate
in English, but how you respond Rand. You told me I was delusional
because I didn't know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction just prior to the war in 2003. You told me I was an
idiot because I was claiming that we don't just hunt fish we also
farm them.

I seriously doubt the latter, but if I did, I apologize.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:40:06 -0600, Dr John Stockton wrote
(in article ):

JRS: In article ,
dated Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:59:27 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy,
Herb Schaltegger posted :
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?

One should generally not use "this news group" in a cross-posted
article. I'm considering it to mean news:sci.space.policy.


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

No need to assume that archiving necessarily involves statnews.pl.

I didn't make such an assumption. Why do you think that I have?

--
Herb

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

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:40:06 +0000, in a place far, far away, Dr John
Stockton made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I have here 11 days of articles, 640 of them, omitting a few manifestly
troll-type threads : 1588176 bytes.

There's about 115 distinct authors; the Prolific 3 are
Henry 56
Rand 53
Ed 39

When I did the same a day or two ago, Rand was well ahead of Henry.

We all know how good Henry's articles are : it's a pity that there's
someone who posts about as much but does so without even achieving, /in
toto/, the value of the least of Henry's articles AFAIR.

Counting articles is misleading. Another interesting statistic is
article length. When it comes to wasting bandwidth (if that's the
complaint), I'm sure that there are many much worse than me, because
there are so many people who never trim a word, and get into long
arguments with Guth and his keyboard diarrhea.

13 authors posted 50% of the articles between them. Under 20 averaged
more than one per day.

All that means is that Usenet, like all else, follows Pareto's Law.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:30:52 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:



The point being debated is not whether we can clearly communicate
in English, but how you respond Rand. You told me I was delusional
because I didn't know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction just prior to the war in 2003. You told me I was an
idiot because I was claiming that we don't just hunt fish we also
farm them.


I seriously doubt the latter,

You can go re read the thread "Earth's carrying Capacity"
of august 2004.

but if I did, I apologize.

Apology accepted.


Alain Fournier

Dave O'Neill wrote:


You've posted something like, according to Google, 25% of the content
of this particular Newsgroup.





What was really amazing was that sometimes it seemed like he was posting
for 24 or 36 hours straight with no sleep.
That's when I first suspected that he might be something other than
human. I think he first suspected that he might be something other than
human decades ago. :-D

Pat