Is NASA a US "Defence Agency"?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:41:55 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


It appears that Quayle is not the only moron in this thread, Rand.

It only appears that way to the actual only moron in this thread. It
would have been obvious to a non-moron that I was referring to SEI,
since NASA and truly had nothing to do with SDI (though Quayle did--he
was the one who initiated the DC-X program).

Yet, Quayle was chairman of the Space Council and if you read the
section that you deleted (you ALWAYS do that when you are wrong, btw)
you will see exactly how he was connected to SEI.

I never denied that he was connected to SEI, you moron.

So, why did Truly kill SEI?

I don't know, ask him.

Translation: You have no fricken clue.

No, translation: it would be speculation. I'm not a mind reader.

All of which has nothing to do with what killed SEI. It was Dick
Truly who did so.

Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!

No, it had absolutely nothing do with with what Dan Quayle knew about
either Mars, or potatoes.

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.


Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is no such thing as "Bush Jr." and "Bush Sr." They have
different names.

But everyone with a brain knows:

I guess that leaves you out, then.

It is much easier to use the latter designation then to decipher
"Herbert Walker" form simply "Walker". Your nitpick is akin to a
spelling flame.

No, its akin to saying that people should be respectful enough to use
their actual names. What's "easier" is beside the point.

On Nov 20, 1:42 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:41:55 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





It appears that Quayle is not the only moron in this thread, Rand.

It only appears that way to the actual only moron in this thread. It
would have been obvious to a non-moron that I was referring to SEI,
since NASA and truly had nothing to do with SDI (though Quayle did--he
was the one who initiated the DC-X program).

Yet, Quayle was chairman of the Space Council and if you read the
section that you deleted (you ALWAYS do that when you are wrong, btw)
you will see exactly how he was connected to SEI.

I never denied that he was connected to SEI, you moron.

So, why did Truly kill SEI?

I don't know, ask him.

Translation: You have no fricken clue.

No, translation: it would be speculation. I'm not a mind reader.

All of which has nothing to do with what killed SEI. It was Dick
Truly who did so.

Because Dan Quayle didn't know the difference between Mars and a
potato!

No, it had absolutely nothing do with with what Dan Quayle knew about
either Mars, or potatoes.

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

Only to non-morons. ha!


He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.


Yes, you did and now you're backpeddling, as usual.


Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

Fired, again?

You tried to blame SEI's demise on Truly. That was false. I stated
Qualye as well as anyone was to blame. More likely SEI was DOA as it
was poorly thought out and had no real plan, just like W's VSE.

It was about then that you turned to invective as you always do when
you're wrong. You use pomposity to hide your ignorance. It doesn't
work.

On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is no such thing as "Bush Jr." and "Bush Sr." They have
different names.

But everyone with a brain knows:

I guess that leaves you out, then.

Yet I outwit you daily, learn from you what little you have to offer
and expose you for the jerk that you are.


It is much easier to use the latter designation then to decipher
"Herbert Walker" form simply "Walker". Your nitpick is akin to a
spelling flame.

No, its akin to saying that people should be respectful enough to use
their actual names. What's "easier" is beside the point.

W has lost all respect of the people except for a few fools like you.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:22:05 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

Only to non-morons. ha!

It failed, then.


He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.


Yes, you did and now you're backpeddling, as usual.

No, I didn't, you moron. Provide a quote in which I said that.

Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

Fired, again?

You tried to blame SEI's demise on Truly. That was false.

No, it was true.

snip rest of stupidity

On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:22:05 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

Only to non-morons. ha!

It failed, then.



Referring to yourself as "it", now?



He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.

Yes, you did and now you're backpeddling, as usual.

No, I didn't, you moron. Provide a quote in which I said that.

You didn't do anything exept defend Quayle and try to blame Truly.

Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

Fired, again?

You tried to blame SEI's demise on Truly. That was false.

No, it was true.

Yet, then you stated that SEI was dead before Truly was fired.
According to the document you referenced, Truly was fired because
nobody liked working for him.

Why didn't the next NASA administrator pick up SEI and run with it?

snip rest of stupidity

You always do that when you're too lazy to argue the points are when
the deleted reference proves you arong.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

It's not
exactly a hot campaign issue.

Nor has it been, really, since 1960.

In fact, much as some people like to wrap space arguments into
politics and the culture wars... for most of the last 45 years, the
difference between Republican and Democratic "party views" on space
has usually been of less importance than

- the difference between strong and weak NASA administrators and
senior staff
- the difference between senior/influential and junior/non-influential
legislators on key committees (and/or representing CA, FL, TX)
- the health of the aerospace industry
- the difference between periods of strong and weak economic growth in
general

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:36:15 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:22:05 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

Only to non-morons. ha!

It failed, then.



Referring to yourself as "it", now?

No. Work on the "reading comprehension" thing.

He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.

Yes, you did and now you're backpeddling, as usual.

No, I didn't, you moron. Provide a quote in which I said that.

You didn't do anything exept defend Quayle and try to blame Truly.

I did many things other than that, but I did that, yes, because it
corresponds to historical reality.

In other words, I didn't say what you said I did (i.e., you're
incapable of reading comprehension).

Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

Fired, again?

You tried to blame SEI's demise on Truly. That was false.

No, it was true.

Yet, then you stated that SEI was dead before Truly was fired.

Which is not at all inconsistent with the fact that he was fired after
SEI died.

According to the document you referenced, Truly was fired because
nobody liked working for him.

That was probably true, but there were other reasons.

Why didn't the next NASA administrator pick up SEI and run with it?

Because Truly had already completely poisoned the well with the
Ninety-Day Report.

On Nov 20, 5:08 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:36:15 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On Nov 20, 4:33 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:22:05 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You doubt Quayle is dumb?

What I think about Dan Quayle is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you think he is smart it doesn't.

Was this supposed to make sense?

Only to non-morons. ha!

It failed, then.

Referring to yourself as "it", now?

No. Work on the "reading comprehension" thing.


Pot, kettle, black.


He even sent his legislative liaison to the Hill to
lobby against it.

And Bush and Quayle let him?

How were they supposed to stop him? He got fired for it, you moron.

So that overturned SEI? His firing made SEI viable again?

No.

Then it was never viable in the first place! QED.

I never said it was, you moron.

Yes, you did and now you're backpeddling, as usual.

No, I didn't, you moron. Provide a quote in which I said that.

You didn't do anything exept defend Quayle and try to blame Truly.

I did many things other than that, but I did that, yes, because it
corresponds to historical reality.

Truly was not liked, that is clear. But Quayle was incompetent as
chairman of the Space Council mostly because he's was imcompetent at
virtually everything except golf and beer.

In other words, I didn't say what you said I did (i.e., you're
incapable of reading comprehension).

You're in no position to pass judgement on anyone reading ability or
their ability to comprehend.


Or did his firing allow SEI to die?

SEI had already died by the time he got fired.

So why did he get fired again?

No one said he got fired again, you moron.

Fired, again?

You tried to blame SEI's demise on Truly. That was false.

No, it was true.

Yet, then you stated that SEI was dead before Truly was fired.

Which is not at all inconsistent with the fact that he was fired after
SEI died.

Which in your tiny mind adds up to cause and effect? Truly was fired
because no one wanted to work for him! SEI died because it was a lousy
idea being backed by a boob of a VP!

According to the document you referenced, Truly was fired because
nobody liked working for him.

That was probably true, but there were other reasons.

But nowhere does it state that Truly was fired because he tried to
sabotage SEI, or even for lack of support, etc.

Why didn't the next NASA administrator pick up SEI and run with it?

Because Truly had already completely poisoned the well with the
Ninety-Day Report.

Posioned the well?? Boy talk about a scapegoat here.

Rand, W is trying to create SEI through VSE and a posioned well has
nothing to do with it. That is only spin to pin the blame on a easy
target than no one liked.
Hell I know that if a Democrat gets elected and VSE, because it like
SEI is DOA, said Dem will get the blame for killing it. Just like you
blamed Truly!

To claim some report messed it up only lends creedence that the truth
more likely than anything else is what killed it and here you want to
shoot the messenger.

Perhaps Kt is right, in your heart you ARE a fascist, and just to
arrogant to see it.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:56:00 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
wrote:

On Nov 18, 1:30 pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:

So you can't blame "Clinton" for squashing that attempt....because
Daddy George NEVER made an HONEST attempt to set the plan into motion.

Wrong.

The only mission we had to the moon in decades was Clementine and it
had nothing to do with Bush's plan.


Half right. We also had Lunar Prospector a few years after
Clemintine. It didn't have anything to do with SEI either (SEI was
dead and buried by 1996). But it was a Moon mission. In fact, now
that I think of it, Lunar Prospector was desinged as a lunar mission
from the get-go. In contrast, Clemintine was a BMDO mission that used
the Moon to test some of their technologies.


If Bush Sr.'s lunar plan was worth anything his son would have
resurrected it. Not be came up with his own farce, err, vision.


Let's see .... SEI: Base on the Moon; missions to Mars. VSE: Base on
the Moon; Missions to Mars. George W. may not have resurrected
specific ideas, but he seems to have got the same goals in mind.

.... And for you to act like the Bushes of have done anything related to
action WRT to returning to the moon means that your partisan blindness
is still unchecked.


Fact: Both President Bushes (R) proposed it.

Fact: NASA is designing the hardware for it, which has been debated
vigorously in this forum.

Fact: Bill Clinton (D) did not propose doing it.

Fact: Hillary (D) has already said that if elected she will shut down
the VSE.

What's the partisan part?

Maybe they will. Maybe we will. Maybe there will be a multinational
effort. Maybe I'll sleep with a supermodel tonight. Who knows?

Now you're dreaming.


About the suppermodel? Oh, yeah. All alone again! :_(



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----