|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
|
#502
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
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. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
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. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
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 |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
Rand Simberg wrote: 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. Yes you believe that you did. He had no substantive response (other than gainsaying denial), simply moving on to his next fantasy. No, actually he had many responses which he dealt with in detail on your Blog and his own Blog. Most were able to follow the discussion. Yes we were. Dave |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
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. All of the above have had strong to violent disagreements with you over your debating technique and your view of the world both in space and on Earth. Anybody have any stats on how big this news group actually is? Dave |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
Rand Simberg wrote: 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. And we're also back to how you chose to sample data to support your perception. Dave |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
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? Someone who archives the group (*cough* OM *cough*) ought to download statnews.pl and analyze the posts. -- Herb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
Rand Simberg wrote: 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? 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. (glances at the thread) - looks pretty explosive from here and that's without reading the content. 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. I accept that you don't realise that this is how you behave, but you should and you should do something about it. 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..." 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. You'd not be the only person I know like that, but it's still sad. Dave |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
CEV to be made commercially available
Rand Simberg wrote: 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), Something you fail to do on a frequent basis - according to the comments made by the 10 up there, and in the case of this thread, 4 of them - 2 of whom you don't seem to have a problem with who obviously were just passing by and thought they'd mention it. 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... Glancing at the list, there's at least another 3 or 4 having "spats" with you about one thing or another. You're a nasty piece of work on line when people disagree with you. You can pretend it's us all you like, but it doesn't alter things. Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CRACK THIS CODE!!! NASA CAN'T | zetasum | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:27 AM |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | History | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
Could a bullet be made any something that could go from orbit to Earth's surface? | Scott T. Jensen | Space Science Misc | 20 | July 31st 04 02:19 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
News: Astronaut; Russian space agency made many mistakes - Pravda | Rusty B | Policy | 1 | August 1st 03 02:12 AM |