Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:53:36 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Rand Simberg) made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:25:24 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you're right (though
there's little reason to think so), just what should he have done
instead?

I don't know. I just personally feel that his plan is nothing more than a
bit of eyewash to help his re-electibility.

Then we'll give your criticism, and "feelings" all the respect they're
due.

Just as a follow-up, here's a pertinent Fox News column I just
published:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111160,00.html

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
Just as a follow-up, here's a pertinent Fox News column I just
published:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111160,00.html

I'm sure we'll give your opinions, criticism, and feelings all the respect
they're due.

The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual superiority.
Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.

-Kim-

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:16:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Kim Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I'm sure we'll give your opinions, criticism, and feelings all the respect
they're due.

I expect no more, or less.

The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual superiority.

It has nothing to do with intellect.

Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.

Pointless and baseless ad hominem noted.

The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than
anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual
superiority.
Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.

-Kim-

LOL The "fair and balanced" news! Aligning oneself with Fox already
portrays a right-wing slant.

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in message ...
The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than
anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual
superiority.
Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.

-Kim-

LOL The "fair and balanced" news! Aligning oneself with Fox already
portrays a right-wing slant.

Fox can't help it that liberals see any middle position as
'conservative,' which I suppose it is compared to the left wing slant
that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC have been spewing for years. Many
studies have documented this bias on political coverage, especially
with regard to word choice and segment selection. Did you know that
CNN, ABC, and Newsweek ALL had the exact same information for TWO
WEEKS prior to the story Drudge 'broke' on Monica Lewinski? I
certainly didn't see a delay in Bob Packwood, Anita Hill coverage or
this trumped up Bush Nat'l Guard issue.

Tom Merkle

On or about Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:21:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Merkle made the sensational claim that:
Fox can't help it that liberals see any middle position as
'conservative,' which I suppose it is compared to the left wing slant
that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC have been spewing for years.

And most conservatives see that middle position as 'liberal'. If one
considers oneself liberal, and someone says something one doesn't agree with,
why must one immediately[1] label that person "conservative"? I, for one, am
tired of getting blasted as either because my opinions are not so monolithic
as most people.

Many
studies have documented this bias on political coverage, especially
with regard to word choice and segment selection.

Real actual studies on a subjective topic? Can you please cite at least one,
I'd love to see such a beast.

[1] I just learned to spell that word today. F**king *FINALLY*.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in message ...
The simple fact that you've established a public pulpit for your opinions
does nothing to make them any more relevant, or even fact-based, than
anyone
else's opinions, so please shelve your feelings of intellectual
superiority.
Particularly since you chose to align yourself with Fox.

-Kim-

LOL The "fair and balanced" news! Aligning oneself with Fox already
portrays a right-wing slant.

Fox can't help it that liberals see any middle position as
'conservative,' which I suppose it is compared to the left wing slant
that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC have been spewing for years. Many
studies have documented this bias on political coverage, especially
with regard to word choice and segment selection. Did you know that
CNN, ABC, and Newsweek ALL had the exact same information for TWO
WEEKS prior to the story Drudge 'broke' on Monica Lewinski? I
certainly didn't see a delay in Bob Packwood, Anita Hill coverage or
this trumped up Bush Nat'l Guard issue.

it seems to be part of the general divisiveness in the nation these
days. Take my grandfather, for instance. He thinks that anything that
isn't Fox News is "liberal" - and refuses to recognize that all the
major news outlets get stories and info from each other. If confronted
with something truly left wing, like say commondreams.org or Pacifica
radio, he starts spouting anti-Communist rhetoric. All major media are
both biased and delibrately manipulative - just like the politicians
and business interests they serve. Television especially makes the
divides beween people wider, it is structurally hard to show more than
2 sides to a topic on TV.

Tom, I asked a couple days ago in another thread - why do you think
that Meridiani has life waiting right under Opportunity's nose?

josh

Tom Merkle

Tom Merkle wrote:

Did you know that
CNN, ABC, and Newsweek ALL had the exact same information for TWO
WEEKS prior to the story Drudge 'broke' on Monica Lewinski?

Boy, I remember how well that whole thing went for the Republicans; not
only did the impeachment proceedings make them look like a bunch of
completely clueless jerks, but Clinton stiffed them when they wanted him
to resign, and they ended up with both Henry Hyde and Robert Livingstone
in deep doo-doo in the wildly entertaining "infidelity of the week"
scandals.
And now there is a rumor about Kerry and an intern; I wonder how _this_
will all play out?
With their "friends" being the human equivalent of sharks in a feeding
frenzy, they never need to worry about the Democrats being the the
primary threat to their success. That threat shall always be residing in
their own right wing.

Pat

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:34:09 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

And now there is a rumor about Kerry and an intern; I wonder how _this_
will all play out?

That's more likely coming from a Democrat camp. If it were
Republicans, they'd have waited until October, not now, when the
primary's still at least theoretically in play.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say this has Lehane's fingerprints on
it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111160,00.html

Wow. Lots of stuff here. I'lll start with the link to
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau102.html - as usual, anything
put out by the Space Access Society is worth reading.

What I've found interesting about the reaction to the Bush space
policy is mainly that people actually have noticed. I don't remember
as much public discussion of SEI in the 80's (although of course this
could be selective memory).

You're right that a lot of the reaction has been knee-jerk anti-Bush.
This morning on the radio there was a whole thing about how it must
have to do with the militarization of space. Well, I'm sure the
commentator disagrees with the administration about the militarization
of space, but I don't see the connection to NASA or to the exploration
program. What hasn't been based on random observations about the Bush
administration has often been based on random observations about NASA
and/or space, again divorced from what is actually being proposed.