A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ESA Funding question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old July 1st 03, 11:00 PM
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question



Rand Simberg wrote:
On 30 Jun 2003 08:05:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, Hop David
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Obviously, when I say "everyone," I'm speaking colloquially, since
it's not possible for me to literally know what everyone is saying.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, don't.


I didn't know colloquial was a synonym for false.



It's not.


Universal quantifiers are favored by narrow minded folks who lean on 2-D
stereotypes. Saying "All those Republicans are racists." or "Everyone
with black skin is lazy." isn't speaking colloquially. It's speaking
falsely.



Learn something new every day.



I imagine you run across new facts every day, though it's not at all
clear whether or not you ever learn.


Right you are. Still haven't learned the existence of Iraqi WMDs is an
indisputable fact. Just show me the WMDs.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html


  #3  
Old July 1st 03, 11:45 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

On 1 Jul 2003 22:00:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Hop David
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I didn't know colloquial was a synonym for false.


It's not.


Universal quantifiers are favored by narrow minded folks who lean on 2-D
stereotypes. Saying "All those Republicans are racists." or "Everyone
with black skin is lazy." isn't speaking colloquially. It's speaking
falsely.


They're also favored by folks who are typing quickly on Usenet and
don't expect people to take them literally when that would be an
obviously ridiculous and foolish interpretation.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

  #4  
Old July 2nd 03, 07:40 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.


It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)


Which would be because except for people enganing in revisionist plug-up
of a campaign of lying, they still remember that this was the reason brought
both in UN and otherwise.


There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.


You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.


Which just means that the right location for at least a certain amount of
US administrtaion is in jail - and probably for a long term.



D.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

  #5  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:10 AM
C. Heise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question


"Rick C" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


after the 2nd gulfwar there wasn`t any attacks with c-weapons. and hey who`s
planing to interfer with the iranians right now, heared something about
chasing terrorists there. but diskus that somewhere else this here is about
science and space.


  #6  
Old July 3rd 03, 01:00 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

In sci.space.policy Rick C wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


By all evidence, those stocks either ran out or were destroyed.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

  #7  
Old July 4th 03, 01:35 AM
Jonathan A. Goff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

Sander Vesik wrote:
In sci.space.policy Rick C wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


By all evidence, those stocks either ran out or were destroyed.


There's also the inconvenient fact that most of their CBW systems were
of such low quality that they had a shelf life measured in days and
weeks....but let's not let reality get in the way of our foreign policy.

~Jon

  #8  
Old July 30th 03, 11:25 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.

It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)


Which would be because except for people enganing in revisionist plug-up
of a campaign of lying, they still remember that this was the reason brought
both in UN and otherwise.


The popular press is playing this angle because the other is somewhat
more complex to explain and leaves the press short of breathless
soundbites.


There is no other angle - for the UN resolution to be relevant inthe matter,
there would have needed to be a second one authorising use of force over
the failure to comply with the first. Such did not exist and hence there
is no angle. UNless you mean teh falsified and bogus data presented to
UN.



There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.


You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Hmm... UN Inspectors need to talk to scientist/technocrat 'X' in
order to determine what he has or has not done or did.. Iraq prevents
the UN inspectors from speaking to him.

Hmm... UN inspectors need to visit location 'Y' to determine if in
fact WMD related activities did or did not take place there.. Iraq
prevents the UN inspectors from visiting the location.


So either talking to expert 'X' or visting facility 'Y' would have allowed
them to find evidence of the WMD's? I don't see how any credibility can be
attributed to that, as it would presuppose the ability of WMDs to
mirraculously appear.


Hmm... Seems it's pretty easy to interfere with finding what was not
there in the first place, by not allowing the inspectors acess to the
information they need to confirm the presence or absence of an
activity.


Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.


Which just means that the right location for at least a certain amount of
US administrtaion is in jail - and probably for a long term.


A nice non-sequiter that utterly fails to adress the point under
discussion.


Not at all - it addresses the 'US lack of will to carry through its
intent' point - the US had the intent of having a war with Iraq and
occupying it, which it first tried to achieve via presenting the UN
security council with known bogus information and then having failed
to pursue this course, held an illegal war causing massive civilian
causalities. For which those responsible should be appropriately
persecuted.


D.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

  #9  
Old July 31st 03, 01:30 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

Sander Vesik wrote:
drivel snipped

Sir;

You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main aim is
to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements, evasions, and
deliberate misunderstanding of basic English.

How you can behave like this while deriding Maxon for doing the same
escapes me.

EOT.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #10  
Old July 31st 03, 02:45 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA Funding question

Derek Lyons wrote:

You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main
aim is to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements,
evasions, and deliberate misunderstanding of basic English.


Where have you been the last few weeks, Derek? We've missed you. :-)

Jim Davis

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.