CEV to be made commercially available

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.

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

On 11 Dec 2005 01:57:52 -0800, "Dave O'Neill"
wrote:

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.

....His best arguments are when he uses more than two sentences in a
reply. Sadly, those come so rarely now that I'm convinced Rand's
contracted some sort of troll syndrome, and is just playing chain jerk
games. If it weren't for the terse replies, I'd almost begin to wonder
if he and Bell weren't separated at aborton.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

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.