NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns...

I find it amusing that NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns. Here's
what they had to say about his last column:

Editor's note: These Fox-sponsored, Libertarian OpEds are quite
entertaining - but offer little else than an entertaining litany
of past sins - real and imagined. These pundits complain about
how bad NASA is - but never, ever offer a cogent solution to the
problems they cite."

Yawn.

Chuckle.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 13 Oct 2003 16:11:38 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I find it amusing that NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns. Here's
what they had to say about his last column:

Editor's note: These Fox-sponsored, Libertarian OpEds are quite
entertaining - but offer little else than an entertaining litany
of past sins - real and imagined. These pundits complain about
how bad NASA is - but never, ever offer a cogent solution to the
problems they cite."

Yawn.

Chuckle.

Fox is Libertarian now? Who knew?

Actually, I think that Keith is ****ed off at me since January--that's
the last time that he linked to any of my stuff, and I've quit
bothering to give him a heads up about them.

We had an email exchange about the "space exploration summit" that
Spaceref had, in which I asked why there was no discussion of
potential private exploration activities. His (repeated) response (to
admittedly repeated questioning) was that if I didn't like the format,
I could go organize my own. I tried to be polite, but I guess I sent
him one too many emails on the subject, because he hasn't corresponded
since then. He can be a little prickly at times.

Of course, I continue to link to his site, because I do think it's a
valuable one (though I wish he'd get permalinks--if he did, I'd link
to individual items, and probably link to him much more).

--
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:

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

We had an email exchange about the "space exploration summit" that
Spaceref had, in which I asked why there was no discussion of
potential private exploration activities. His (repeated) response (to
admittedly repeated questioning) was that if I didn't like the format,
I could go organize my own. I tried to be polite, but I guess I sent
him one too many emails on the subject, because he hasn't corresponded
since then. He can be a little prickly at times.

I've had no personal contact with Keith (outside of a few, brief,
email exchanges), so I can't guess as to why he would hold this view.
Perhaps he is of the belief that only NASA ought to be exploring
space? I've talked to many ex-NASA employees who hold this view,
despite their other misgivings about the agency.

Of course, I continue to link to his site, because I do think it's a
valuable one (though I wish he'd get permalinks--if he did, I'd link
to individual items, and probably link to him much more).

No doubt, but it's biased in its own ways, just as your column biased
in others. I really love free press. ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 13 Oct 2003 17:47:44 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) writes:

We had an email exchange about the "space exploration summit" that
Spaceref had, in which I asked why there was no discussion of
potential private exploration activities. His (repeated) response (to
admittedly repeated questioning) was that if I didn't like the format,
I could go organize my own. I tried to be polite, but I guess I sent
him one too many emails on the subject, because he hasn't corresponded
since then. He can be a little prickly at times.

I've had no personal contact with Keith (outside of a few, brief,
email exchanges), so I can't guess as to why he would hold this view.
Perhaps he is of the belief that only NASA ought to be exploring
space? I've talked to many ex-NASA employees who hold this view,
despite their other misgivings about the agency.

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2003 17:47:44 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) writes:

We had an email exchange about the "space exploration summit" that
Spaceref had, in which I asked why there was no discussion of
potential private exploration activities. His (repeated) response (to
admittedly repeated questioning) was that if I didn't like the format,
I could go organize my own. I tried to be polite, but I guess I sent
him one too many emails on the subject, because he hasn't corresponded
since then. He can be a little prickly at times.

I've had no personal contact with Keith (outside of a few, brief,
email exchanges), so I can't guess as to why he would hold this view.
Perhaps he is of the belief that only NASA ought to be exploring
space? I've talked to many ex-NASA employees who hold this view,
despite their other misgivings about the agency.

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

He is hardly alone in that perspective Rand.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:09:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

He is hardly alone in that perspective Rand.

So? Did I say he was?

--
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:

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
I find it amusing that NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns...
"...These pundits complain about
how bad NASA is - but never, ever offer a cogent solution to the
problems they cite."

There is, of course, a hidden assumption he that NASA's problems
are solvable.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:40:07 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
I find it amusing that NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns...
"...These pundits complain about
how bad NASA is - but never, ever offer a cogent solution to the
problems they cite."

There is, of course, a hidden assumption he that NASA's problems
are solvable.

Well, actually, the column did offer one potential solution (though I
didn't necessarily advocate it)--euthanizing NASA... ;-)

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:09:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

He is hardly alone in that perspective Rand.

So? Did I say he was?

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

It's a knack you have with your prose and posts.

Currently there is, in my opinion at least, just as much chance that he is
correct about this.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:43:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:09:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

He is hardly alone in that perspective Rand.

So? Did I say he was?

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

Again, so? Many people can be wrong.

Again, you make a banal, and trivial, even pointless observation.
Should I think that people who don't agree with me are right? If I
thought that, I'd change my opinion.

--
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: