CEV to be made commercially available

On 8 Dec 2005 07:09:10 -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:
On 8 Dec 2005 06:53:06 -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:

By the way, really cool dodge of the point about market analysis tools.

And equally (actually, even more) "cool" dodge of my quesion of how
much my family should suffer before the great "Dave O'Neill" will
consider me worthy of being part of the alt-space community.

Don't be hysterical Rand.

I'm not being "hysterical." You're the one who accused me of working
for big aerospace so that I could keep a roof over my head.

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."

But just stay in denial.

On 8 Dec 2005 07:23:41 -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:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:00:38 -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.

- this whole wounded, "poor me" routine
is a little nauseating.

I'm not doing a "poor me" routine.

It's how your posting comes across.

Not to me.

I'm simply objectively pointing
out the slanderous nature of the creature's utterings. I'm no victim.
You're the one who foolishly talked about lawyers, not me.

shrug Again, a strange response given the context in which lawyers
were raised.

Again, you're the one who raised them, not me.

If it doesn't bother you, I'm wondering why you keep replying.

It entertains me.

On 8 Dec 2005 07:27:35 -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:


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"?

Can you please get your story straight?

I won't wait around to see, as I expect that the answer will continue
to be, "no."

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"?

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.

On 8 Dec 2005 07:31:36 -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. He had no substantive
response (other than gainsaying denial), simply moving on to his next
fantasy. Most were able to follow the discussion. Sorry you weren't.

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Revel away.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:53:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:31:36 -0600, Dave O'Neill wrote
(in article . com):

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Nope. Just a select few. Most are reasonable.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:53:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:31:36 -0600, Dave O'Neill wrote
(in article . com):

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Nope. Just a select few. Most are reasonable.

Really? You know Rand, you're supposed to be a smart guy. When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

Rand, to me you come across as someone with a strong sense of logic, an
even stronger set of core beliefs, and little tolerance for non sequitur.

I suspect you have the same character flaw I try hard to suppress in
myself: the inability to see things from another person's viewpoint when
that viewpoint seems to be based on assumptions contrary to established
fact. There are two problems with that. First, there are occasionally
alternate interpretations of reality that are both compatible with the
way things are on the surface yet contradict each other in underlying
ways. Second, sometimes "established fact" turns out to be incorrect,
annoying as that can be.

So while I agree with you on many things, I find it irritating when you
dismiss people out of hand because what they say doesn't fit your
conclusions. It might be a useful exercise for you to try to find
specific errors in their assumptions, rather than assume that their
logic is faulty. And at least entertain the possibility that there are
fundamentally different goals pushing the adoption of specific
assumptions, and that the argument would be more productive if it were
shifted to the merits of the goals themselves rather than ways to attain
them.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:34:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I revel in the mindset that allows you to say a person is clueless, has
reading comprehension problems and has delusional fantasies about what
you write and yet is not an idiot and not suffering from mental
deficiencies.

Here's a free lesson on the World According to Rand: "It's not me,
it's every one of the rest of you."

Nope. Just a select few. Most are reasonable.

Really? You know Rand, you're supposed to be a smart guy.

Not to listen to my detractors...

When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:06:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Alan
Anderson made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
When poster after
poster tells you how you come across and they're all pretty much in general
agreement, you might just want to think they're on to something.

Poster after poster? I can count them on my fingers. This is a much
bigger newsgroup than that.

Rand, to me you come across as someone with a strong sense of logic, an
even stronger set of core beliefs, and little tolerance for non sequitur.

Good diagnosis.

I suspect you have the same character flaw I try hard to suppress in
myself: the inability to see things from another person's viewpoint when
that viewpoint seems to be based on assumptions contrary to established
fact. There are two problems with that. First, there are occasionally
alternate interpretations of reality that are both compatible with the
way things are on the surface yet contradict each other in underlying
ways. Second, sometimes "established fact" turns out to be incorrect,
annoying as that can be.

Yes, it is, though when someone can establish that it is, I've been
actually known (contrary to some of my detractors) to acknowledge it
(e.g., WMD in Iraq).

So while I agree with you on many things, I find it irritating when you
dismiss people out of hand because what they say doesn't fit your
conclusions. It might be a useful exercise for you to try to find
specific errors in their assumptions, rather than assume that their
logic is faulty. And at least entertain the possibility that there are
fundamentally different goals pushing the adoption of specific
assumptions, and that the argument would be more productive if it were
shifted to the merits of the goals themselves rather than ways to attain
them.

Gosh, what a shock. Useful criticism.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 07:27:35 -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:


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.

snip

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. 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.

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. But a nice distraction.

You've sucessfully moved the topic away from the substantive too. Well
done.

Dave