|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#561
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
OM wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, Hop David wrote: You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. ...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions, you're going to wind up having only yourself to reply to. Hop, you're *BETTER* than this. Your past posts have proven this, and your bickering with Pat isn't doing *ANYONE* one iota of good. It's rapidly putting you into a troll category, and quite a few people are getting *REALLY* ****ing sick of how your posts have degenerated in this direction. Absolutely, ****ing right. What he tried to pull was 100% right out of line, and completely infamous and slanderous. If we get into fights about things, then at least do it without lying about what one another wrote and posted. You've never done that in any posting you've done; and I've always respected you for that. Mind you, anyone trying to replicate or fake your particular turn of phrase regarding insults would be doomed, but that's beside the point. :-D Pay |
#562
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
OM wrote:
...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions, Uh, he's not accusing me of accidental misattribution. He's accusing me of intentional misattribution, outright lies and slander. Attribution lines have one less quotation bar than the quoted text they refer to. Anyone with a week's usenet experience and a double digit IQ should know this convention. I invite anyone to look at his post and judge for themselves. http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq The post cited above has not more than two quotation bars. It's not hard to tell who said what. Hop |
#563
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
Pat Flannery wrote:
OM wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, Hop David wrote: You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. ...Yeah, and if you keep up this retarded game of focusing your arguments on semantics and accidental misattributions, you're going to wind up having only yourself to reply to. Hop, you're *BETTER* than this. Your past posts have proven this, and your bickering with Pat isn't doing *ANYONE* one iota of good. It's rapidly putting you into a troll category, and quite a few people are getting *REALLY* ****ing sick of how your posts have degenerated in this direction. Absolutely, ****ing right. What he tried to pull was 100% right out of line, and completely infamous and slanderous. Ah, more of the flames Om would have me ignor. Attribution lines have one less quotation bar than the quoted text they refer to. http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq The "Hop David wrote:" attribution line has one quotation bar. The text supposedly misattributed to Pat has two quotation bars. No semantics here, just simple arithmetic. Hop |
#564
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OM wrote: On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:08:27 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: So first he lies about what I wrote, ...Hoppy's getting frustrated these days. I fear he's developing Chumpko's Syndrome, http://tinyurl.com/yw5u5g You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. It also indicates that I was replying to myself with the top line "Hop David wrote:" My insult to Pat that follows has a single greater-than-sign preceding each line. This indicates Hop David wrote it. There was no misattribution, intentional or otherwise. I suspect Chomko could correctly interpret the post. Actually, I wouldn't bet on that. |
#565
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:12:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OM wrote: On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:08:27 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: So first he lies about what I wrote, ...Hoppy's getting frustrated these days. I fear he's developing Chumpko's Syndrome, http://tinyurl.com/yw5u5g You can see from the Google tree I'm replying to myself. It also indicates that I was replying to myself with the top line "Hop David wrote:" My insult to Pat that follows has a single greater-than-sign preceding each line. This indicates Hop David wrote it. There was no misattribution, intentional or otherwise. I suspect Chomko could correctly interpret the post. Actually, I wouldn't bet on that. I haven't seen Chomko achieve Pat's level of inumeracy. Attribution line has one less quotation bar than the text it refers to. http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq Has not more than two quotation bars. It is very easy to tell who wrote what. Pat is comparing me to you: "you've obviously turned into a troll...there's something going on that involves a particular psychological archetype that's a true believer in space exploitation and colonization and then degenerates into a troll...as it's happened to Rand Simberg first." In this case I don't mind being compared to you. In contrast to Pat, your opinions on space exploitation seem informed by some familiarity with math, science and business. If there were truth to their **** bombs, Pat and Om's attacks would be damaging. But their baseless accusations will come to rest on their own shirts. Hop |
#566
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
OM wrote:
For God/Yahweh/Roddenberry's sake, stick to the *topic* and defend your stand regarding that. You and Pat may never agree, but at least the rest of us will have a better chance of seeing two sides of a topic with a high S/N ratio than some ****-slinging flame fest would usually supply! OM OK A recap of this thread: Jim Davis started this subthread on October 23 with the assertion that worker housing in space made no sense. Johnny 1-A seconded this notion with "The only way any of that would make sense is if the cost of returning workers to Earth, and the related turnover, was less than the cost of constructing a habitat. Slot in selected assumptions about relative cost and you can reach an answer. The answer is almost surely going to be 'no'. Later in the thread I offered this model: ---- I = investment R = value of resource T = cost of transporting workers H = cost of housing If R I, your project is viable. If the project requires workers at a remote location, you must either transport workers or provide them housing. Either T or H must be included in I. If T H then it makes sense to build housing. ---- I noted that neither Johnny 1-A nor Jim Davis have demonstrated that T H. Jim Davis' oil rigs aren't relevant. Sure, in that case T H, but helicopter or boat transportation is far cheaper than space transportation. Early 20th century desert mining communities are examples of T H, this is more relevant since both T and H would be high in either space communities or desert communities prior to railroads and highways. Pat's pointing at the I.S.S. in LEO wasn't relevant, there is no R (resources) in LEO. There were some interesting discussions on whether R can exceed I (investment), R being lunar resources to build solar power satellites. The argument for lunar resource to build sps was lots of energy sans greenhouse gases and increased options for further space development. I believe it was Paul Dietz who launched the strongest counter-argument: There's millenia of energy in the form of sea water uranium and this makes no CO2. Pat informed Mike Combs that Mars is hard to colonize which had nothing to do with anything Mike was saying. Pat informed me that robotic Discovery missions are much less expensive than human missions which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Nor did that demonstrate that mining can be done sans humans. Especially mining and manufacturing on the scale suggested in the High Frontier. When I talk about repairing stuff in a pressurized bay vs using teleoperated robots, Pat informs me you can't hear or smell in a vacuum. Pat falsely accuses me of a misattribution and spews out an avalanche of frenzied hyperbole and incoherent rants. Om joins in. He chooses to ignor the on topic stuff and join Pat in his false, off topic flame war. I note that figuring out who said what in http://tinyurl.com/ytfkuq is actually quite easy. Are you and Pat really too ****ing stupid to count quotation bars? Or is your false accusation an outright lie? Hop |
#567
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:51:50 -0700, Hop David
wrote: Om joins in. He chooses to ignor the on topic stuff and join Pat in his false, off topic flame war. ....No. No. NO. *NO*. Hop, you're missing the point he You were turning the thread into a flame war over semantics and misattribs. I've already told Pat to back off a bit, now you do the same. Get back to the thread. Drop the semantic card in the toilet and never play it again, and let bygones be on the misattribs. Get back to the meat of the thread. Both of you are better than that - otherwise you're Guthballs. And it's OM. All caps. Like I'm yelling it at you. Spelled like it sounds. Wo-Jo-Ho-Witz. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#568
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about "The High Frontier"
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:38:55 -0700, Hop David
wrote: I haven't seen Chomko achieve Pat's level of inumeracy. ....I haven't seen Chumpko achieve *anything* at Pat's level, much less Guthball's level. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The "experts" strike again... :) :) :) "Direct" version of my "open Service Module" on NSF | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | August 17th 07 02:19 PM |
Great News! Boulder High School CWA "panelists" could be infor it! | Starlord | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 2nd 07 09:43 PM |
"VideO Madness" "Pulp FictiOn!!!," ...., and "Kill Bill!!!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 26th 06 09:24 PM |
why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing? | Frank Johnson | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | January 9th 06 05:21 PM |