Problems with Problems With The Orion Spacecraft #6 - Air Force Funding

[bombardmentforce]

"Air Force was approached, it repeatedly refused to fund Orion..." -
POS
http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/OrionProblems.html
--
"we decided ... to stick with the Air Force" - Freeman Dyson - Project
Orion page 199

"Air force physicists in Alberquerque were enthusiastic supporters from
the beginning and stayed with Orion till the end.

-Project Orion page 198


http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/problems-with-problems-with-orion_05.html
-------------
Index of problems with problems with The Orion Spacecraft
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/index-to-problems-with-pos.html

[Henry Spencer]

In article om>,
bombardmentforce > wrote:
>"Air Force was approached, it repeatedly refused to fund Orion..." -
>http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/OrionProblems.html
>"we decided ... to stick with the Air Force" - Freeman Dyson - Project
>Orion page 199
>"Air force physicists in Alberquerque were enthusiastic supporters from
>the beginning and stayed with Orion till the end.
>-Project Orion page 198

You know, this is pretty pitiful -- is this quibbling and semantic
hairsplitting and quotation out of context really the best you can do?

The three quotes are talking about different things: the first is talking
about large-scale funding for full development (repeatedly refused), the
second about a trickle of ARPA/USAF funding for small studies (provided,
for a while), and the third about USAF researchers with no significant
funding authority (indeed, if you actually read that page, the physicists'
support is mentioned in the context of explaining that higher levels of
the USAF "are so far quite convinced we are crazy").
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[bombardmentforce]

"At around that point, US space efforts were reorganized so that all
military projects were funded by the Air Force and all civilian
projects by NASA. When the Air Force was approached, it repeatedly
refused to fund Orion"

>The three quotes are talking about different things: the first is talking
>about large-scale funding for full development

I don't see the words 'large scale...full' in the orginal, perhaps Ian
could fix this error with his mad writing skilz.
I'll throw "Stong Dogs" in here also so I don't have to number it.

>higher levels of the USAF "are so far quite convinced we are crazy"

Not 'higher levels' of USAF, "the military", "higher political levels".
We know CINCSAC Power was a supporter and Chief of Staff of the
United States Air Force LeMay, the senior uniformed Air Force officer.
So "higher" opposition must have been by non Air Force individuals to
be derided later.

[Kelly McDonald]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 00:54:24 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

>In article om>,
>bombardmentforce > wrote:
>>"Air Force was approached, it repeatedly refused to fund Orion..." -
>>http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/OrionProblems.html
>>"we decided ... to stick with the Air Force" - Freeman Dyson - Project
>>Orion page 199
>>"Air force physicists in Alberquerque were enthusiastic supporters from
>>the beginning and stayed with Orion till the end.
>>-Project Orion page 198
>
>You know, this is pretty pitiful -- is this quibbling and semantic
>hairsplitting and quotation out of context really the best you can do?
>

I figure sooner or later Bombardmentforce is going to realise that he
is talking to an empty room.

He's well on his way of joining the ranks of Maxon, CT, Suff and Scott
Grissom

He sounds very similar to a kook from soc.history.what-if named John
Freck.

Kelly McDonald
>The three quotes are talking about different things: the first is talking
>about large-scale funding for full development (repeatedly refused), the
>second about a trickle of ARPA/USAF funding for small studies (provided,
>for a while), and the third about USAF researchers with no significant
>funding authority (indeed, if you actually read that page, the physicists'
>support is mentioned in the context of explaining that higher levels of
>the USAF "are so far quite convinced we are crazy").

[Cambias]

I can't even tell whether "bombardmentforce" is a kook who thinks Orion
could never have worked or a kook who thinks it's the future of space
travel.

Cambias
www.zygotegames.com

[bombardmentforce]

Kelly McDonald wrote:
> >>"Air Force was approached, it repeatedly refused to fund Orion..." -
> >>http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/OrionProblems.html

> an empty room.

The empty part of the room likes lies, the good part of the room likes
Truth.

[bombardmentforce]

Camdias
>I can't even tell whether "bombardmentforce" ... thinks Orion
>could never have worked or ... thinks it's the future of space
>travel.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/

Thesis:"Reasons why we should build a modern version of the Deep Space
Bombardment Force. To replace our current atomic arsenal and to grasp
the next American Frontier."

Can you hear me now?

[Cambias]

Yes. And you share a problem with a great many fanatics: there's a
difference between people not hearing you and people not agreeing with
you.

For instance, myself. I wouldn't exist had it not been for the atomic
weapons that ended World War II, I'm second to none in my enthusiasm
for space exploration, and I've always thought radiation is overrated
as a hazard. But I still don't think orbital nukes, or lunar ones, or
space crowbars o'doom, are a good idea. The current strategic
environment doesn't really require anything like that.

Repeating your message won't convince me, either. I understand what
you're saying, I just don't agree with you.

And for the record, my name is...
Cambias
www.zygotegames.com

[John Schilling]

In article om>, Cambias
says...

>I can't even tell whether "bombardmentforce" is a kook who thinks Orion
>could never have worked or a kook who thinks it's the future of space
>travel.

He is a Type II Kook, in your scheme. And he's got it dialed to eleven.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

[bombardmentforce]

>>>I can't even tell

A >people not hearing you
B >people not agreeing with you.


Is you A or is you B?

>second to none in my enthusiasm for space exploration

Second to Ulam, Dyson, Taylor, Sakharov, Power, LeMay, thousands of
others... and now me.

>The current strategic environment doesn't really require

The current stategic environment is unstable
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/motive.html

How many FOBS would a mullah build if a mullah could build FOBS?


>Repeating your message

You claimed you hadn't ever head it. "I can't even tell "


> I understand what you're saying
>>>I can't even tell

>my name is
I can't even tell if you name is "this" or if it is "that".

[bombardmentforce]

>dialed to eleven
The thesis is on every page of the blog.

>Cam bias's scheme

Is to lie about what he could tell.

[Paul F. Dietz]

bombardmentforce wrote:

>>Cam bias's scheme
>
>
> Is to lie about what he could tell.


Jeez, what a complete psycho. Go babble elsewhere, freak.

Paul

[bombardmentforce]

Cambias1
>I can't even tell whether "bombardmentforce" ... thinks Orion
>could never have worked or ... thinks it's the future of space
>travel.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/

Thesis:"Reasons why we should build a modern version of the Deep Space
Bombardment Force. To replace our current atomic arsenal and to grasp
the next American Frontier."

Paul
>Jeez,

Are you going to claim that his lack of perception is real?

>Cambias2
>Repeating your message won't convince me

But he just claimed to have never understood my simple message, one
post up, why could he call his first exposure to the position
"repeating"?

[Cambias]

No, as I explained, I _do_ understand you, I just don't _agree_ with
you. Like a fanatic, you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference
between those two things.

And being insulting and sophomoric doesn't make people _more_ likely to
listen to your arguments.

Cambias

[bombardmentforce]

C.A.
>as I explained, I _do_ understand you

You claimed not to "I can't even tell" You now claim "you don't seem
to be able to grasp" with no evidence. All I couldn't grasp from you
first post was how you could pretend to be so ignorant of the topic.

C. A.
>>>>a kook
>Like a fanatic

> being insulting and sophomoric

You started on the wrong foot by your own standards.

[OM]

On 7 Oct 2005 13:55:30 -0700, "Cambias" >
wrote:

>Yes. And you share a problem with a great many fanatics: there's a
>difference between people not hearing you and people not agreeing with
>you.

....Actually, if you and everyone else would put the ignorant molested
****wit in your killfiles, you'll be putting him out of our misery.
He's CT in drag, who was already a known troll. Don't respond to him
again, PLEASE!

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 07:21:18 -0500, Paul F. Dietz >
wrote:

> bombardmentforce wrote:
>
>>>Cam bias's scheme
>>
>>
>> Is to lie about what he could tell.
>
>
> Jeez, what a complete psycho. Go babble elsewhere, freak.

Don't we need an occasional pro-nuclear kook to balance anti-nuclear
kooks?

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

[Erik Max Francis]

Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:

> Don't we need an occasional pro-nuclear kook to balance anti-nuclear
> kooks?

Like an occasional one would even come close to balancing it ...

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Can I be your friend / 'Till the end
-- India Arie

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

On 7 Oct 2005 15:12:37 -0700, bombardmentforce
> wrote:

>>dialed to eleven
> The thesis is on every page of the blog.
>
>>Cam bias's scheme
>
> Is to lie about what he could tell.

I don't know how to break this to you but you come across as
over-enthusiastic and thin-skinned.

I don't object to being over-enthusiastic even if you might sound
kooky but if you're posting odd ideas you should be braced for
criticism.

In any case, it's much better to stick to discussions of Orion etc.
than to call people liars.

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

[OM]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:59:57 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger
> wrote:

>I don't know how to break this to you but you come across as
>over-enthusiastic and thin-skinned.

....Joseph, he's a confirmed troll. Some of us suspect he's another
known troll who goes by "Stuff4" or "CT". Either way, just killfile
the demented little ******* and put him out of our misery. Responding
to him is an even bigger waste of time than reading his drivel.

Thanks.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[bombardmentforce]

>In any case, it's much better to stick to discussions of Orion etc.
>than to call people liars.

True in general, but Cambias has never really discussed Orion here. He
started with abuse and claims of ignorance that I trusted.

>5. Cambias Oct 7, 3:53 pm
>From: "Cambias"
>I can't even tell whether "bombardmentforce" is a kook who thinks Orion
>could never have worked or a kook who thinks it's the future of space
>travel.

In his very next post he claims to have heard DSBF arguments he's
claimed ignorance of of 62 minutes before.

>7. Cambias Oct 7, 4:55 pm
>From: "Cambias"
>Yes. And you share a problem with a great many fanatics: there's a
>difference between people not hearing you and people not agreeing with
>you.
....

A bit of slightly off target technical content, he never replied to my
concerns about the "strategic environment ".

> But I still don't think orbital nukes,..., are a good idea. The current strategic
>environment doesn't really require anything like that.


Back to the personal attack, he claims to have mastered all my
arguments in 1 and1/30th hour and refuses to reconsider.

>Repeating your message won't convince me, either. I understand what
>you're saying, I just don't agree with you.


Problems with Problems With The Orion Spacecraft #6
is part of a continuing series, so even I have not seen all my
"message" yet.

Tune in later for the next installment.

[bombardmentforce]

>I don't object to being over-enthusiastic ... but if you're posting odd ideas you should
>be braced for criticism.

I have posted ideas that are controversial, but in this thread I'm just
pointing out the historical fact that the USAF did not in fact
"refuse(d) to fund Orion" because they did in fact cut most of the
checks.

Ian's paragraph could be rewritten to make sense and to be true, as it
stands it is confusing and false. In other Orion threads I have met
people who are confused and incorrect. Some of them seem to have read
this old and unmaintained compendium of Orion myths.

[Cambias]

bombardmentforce wrote:
> >In any case, it's much better to stick to discussions of Orion etc.
> >than to call people liars.
>
> True in general, but Cambias has never really discussed Orion here. He
> started with abuse and claims of ignorance that I trusted.
....
>
> In his very next post he claims to have heard DSBF arguments he's
> claimed ignorance of of 62 minutes before.
>
Yes, because during those 62 minutes I READ YOUR WEB PAGE. You posted
a link, remember? I followed it, read your page, and determined that
most of those arguments were things I'm QUITE familiar with anyway.
....
> Back to the personal attack, he claims to have mastered all my
> arguments in 1 and1/30th hour and refuses to reconsider.
>
Because your arguments are not new, so I'm already familiar with most
of them and the objections to most of them. Also, I don't have to move
my lips when I read.

And if you're going to get all bent out of shape about "personal
attacks," here's some valuable advice: Don't call people liars unless
you know for certain that they are deliberately lying. If you mess
with my family, my word, or my hat, you've ended the possibility for
civil discussion.

Now, I'm going to let this stupid argument drop, and you may, if you
wish, believe you have "won." The rest of us understand the difference
between convincing someone and convincing someone you're an ass.

Cambias

[bombardmentforce]

>I'm second to none in my enthusiasm for space exploration

I you actually read my arguments you will know this is false. You
started on the wrong foot with an insult help redeem the thread.

>Because your arguments are not new, so I'm already familiar with most
>of them and the objections to most of them.

Some of my arguments are quite new, just try searching for PK-5000, who
else is discussing it in English? How about three-lobe pulse units, can
you find anyone else even mentioning this outside of GA-5009?

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/motive.html
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-it-safe.html

Provide a link to the objections to this argument.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/05/risk-miles-to-go-and-uncertainty.html
Provide a link to the objections to this argument.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/05/thesis.html

Provide a link to the objections to this argument.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/06/comment-on-space-weapons-space-weapons.html

Provide a link to this argument elsewhere or the objections to this
argument.

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-jfk-would-be-dismayed-by-lyndons.html
Provide a link to this argument elsewhere or the objections to this
argument.

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>...Joseph, he's a confirmed troll. Some of us suspect he's another
>known troll who goes by "Stuff4" or "CT".
>

Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
The whole writing style is different also.
CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
both share that same conceit).
Bombardmentforce, on the other hand would just keep giving his Orion
ships new abilities as objections were raised.
I sometimes got the feeling that he was using us as devil's advocates
to figure out all the possible problems with Orion ships in military use.
It's a pity he didn't just raise the question of whether Orion ships
would be usable in a military sense, as a good discussion of their ups
and downs in regard to this use would have made a fascinating thread.
Way back, somebody said they thought they knew who this guy was, as this
is not the first group he's posted to.

Pat

[Erik Max Francis]

bombardmentforce wrote:

> I have posted ideas that are controversial, but in this thread I'm just
> pointing out the historical fact that the USAF did not in fact
> "refuse(d) to fund Orion" because they did in fact cut most of the
> checks.

So far, your ideas are just incoherent and annoyingly crossposted.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
We'll have to make our own luck from now on.
-- Louis Wu

[bombardmentforce]

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> bombardmentforce wrote:
>
> > I have posted ideas that are controversial, but in this thread I'm just
> > pointing out the historical fact that the USAF did not in fact
> > "refuse(d) to fund Orion" because they did in fact cut most of the
> > checks.
>
> So far, your ideas are just incoherent

Thanks for the input, I'm posting these corrections to POS as
available. Once finished the coherent whole should leave Ian's
conclusions clearly falling to the ground like the red star at the
fairground.


>and annoyingly crossposted.


I'm just aiming to post in the home groups of the original document.

[bombardmentforce]

> using us as devil's advocates to figure out all the possible problems with Orion ships in military use

Bingo, "All input is useful, even if negative". Remember even Herb was
able to make an indirect technical contribution to the logistics of a
system he doesn't comprehend.

>as a good discussion of their ups
>and downs in regard to this use would have made a fascinating thread.

/discussion/ /simulation followed by informed discussion/

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/08/orbiter-combat-by-mail.html
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/09/brave-sir-kelly-runs-away.html

[Kelly McDonald]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:47:42 -0500, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>
>
>OM wrote:
>
>>...Joseph, he's a confirmed troll. Some of us suspect he's another
>>known troll who goes by "Stuff4" or "CT".
>>
>
>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>The whole writing style is different also.
>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>both share that same conceit).
>Bombardmentforce, on the other hand would just keep giving his Orion
>ships new abilities as objections were raised.
>I sometimes got the feeling that he was using us as devil's advocates
>to figure out all the possible problems with Orion ships in military use.
>It's a pity he didn't just raise the question of whether Orion ships
>would be usable in a military sense, as a good discussion of their ups
>and downs in regard to this use would have made a fascinating thread.
>Way back, somebody said they thought they knew who this guy was, as this
>is not the first group he's posted to.
>
>Pat

He seems to share many characterstics with a known kook in
soc.history.what-if, named John Freck. John Freck refused to belive
that Japan didn't have the resources to build a A-bomb by 1943, and
that the proposed German invasion of England (Sealion) was nothing
more than pure fantasy.

They both share an stunnng lack of the ability to understand the
technical limitations of certain periods of history. They both
commonly use a single line from a document as a clear unrefutable
aregument in favor of their position, without understanding the
implications of the overall context.

The only think that makes me doubt that this is John Freck is that
John lacked the technical skills to contruct the kind of blog that
bombardment force has (It is a nice looking site, with lots of good
technical information).

If bombardment force would just let go of the idea that his
unstoppable uber ship could have been built in 1970 with just a little
tweak to the timeline and instead looked at what a modern Orion might
look at (realizing that the present political climate it would be a
non-starter), then a lot of people could share a lot of interesting
and creative ideas. Instead we have a seething and frothing at the
mouth bombardmentforce that we are all morons for not seeing his
"unique" vision.

Kelly McDonald

[Pat Flannery]

Kelly McDonald <kellymcdonald@ wrote:

>If bombardment force would just let go of the idea that his
>unstoppable uber ship could have been built in 1970 with just a little
>tweak to the timeline and instead looked at what a modern Orion might
>look at (realizing that the present political climate it would be a
>non-starter), then a lot of people could share a lot of interesting
>and creative ideas. Instead we have a seething and frothing at the
>mouth bombardmentforce that we are all morons for not seeing his
>"unique" vision.
>
>

Yeah, it would have been really fun to discuss the ups and downs of the
concept, and about as on-topic as it's possible to get with
sci.space.history, but his monomania on the subject pretty well killed
that possibility from the word go.

Pat

[bombardmentforce]

Kelly McDonald wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:47:42 -0500, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
....
> >I sometimes got the feeling that he was using us as devil's advocates
> >to figure out all the possible problems with Orion ships in military use.
> >It's a pity he didn't just raise the question of whether Orion ships
> >would be usable in a military sense, as a good discussion of their ups
> >and downs in regard to this use would have made a fascinating thread.
> >
> >Pat
>
>> bombardment force has (It is a nice looking site, with lots of good
> technical information).

Thx.

>
> If bombardment force would just let go of the idea that his
> unstoppable uber ship could have been built in 1970 with just a little
> tweak to the timeline

The 1970 date ties into some later Moon race posts, but I agree that
actual weapons system development progress was quite off track in the
late 60's.

> and instead looked at what a modern Orion might
> look at

I'm more interested in creating more DS(B/(E)xploration)F(2) i.e.
modern posts to the blog than General Power's DSBF(1) posts. But the
old system is easier to post about right now because of the work left
by larger technical staff.

>(realizing that the present political climate it would be a
> non-starter), then a lot of people could share a lot of interesting
> and creative ideas.

This is a good time, a three lobe design lofted by NASA's CLV stage one
could be quite clean.

....

>
> Kelly McDonald

[OM]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:55:00 -0400, Kelly McDonald
> wrote:

>
>The only think that makes me doubt that this is John Freck is that
>John lacked the technical skills to contruct the kind of blog that
>bombardment force has (It is a nice looking site, with lots of good
>technical information).

....Bombardment****wit has a 'blog? Pray tell the link? I need a good
laugh.


OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[John Freck]

Kelly McDonald wrote:

> If bombardment force would just let go of the idea that his
> unstoppable uber ship could have been built in 1970 with just a little
> tweak to the timeline and instead looked at what a modern Orion might
> look at (realizing that the present political climate it would be a
> non-starter), then a lot of people could share a lot of interesting
> and creative ideas. Instead we have a seething and frothing at the
> mouth bombardmentforce that we are all morons for not seeing his
> "unique" vision.

My God! You are starting up with me again. My vision isn't unique;
many good historians have looked at 1934 as ripe for expanded funding
of radiological studies. My visions of using hollow berylium (the
artifically generated neutrons source)cylindars filled with varous
materials wasn't exactly--unique.

My God! Kelly McDonald, Oh My God! Oh My God! You never figured out
the Fermi's Noble work is what I described going on in Japan. You are
stunned!

John Freck










> Kelly McDonald

[OM]

On 13 Oct 2005 14:37:05 -0700, "John Freck" > wrote:

>My visions of using hollow berylium

....What you put up your ass for sexual gratification is your own
business. Keep it on the kook groups with your favorite enema bandit,
bombardment****wit.

<PLONK>

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[John Freck]

OM wrote:


> On 13 Oct 2005 14:37:05 -0700, "John Freck" > wrote:


>> My visions of using hollow berylium ...



> ...What you put up your ass for sexual gratification
> is your own business. Keep it on the kook groups with
> your favorite enema bandit, bombardment****wit.


I have never heard of bombardment****wit before just the other week
when I searched google groups for 'freck'. I'm not bombardment****wit.
Who are you that you care? Why care? Why is it that you didn't
checkout in detail what replicating Fermi's experiments would mean?

Why would have ATL historys on atomic history require PHds in
theoretical physics when regular atomic history is written by
historians, and journalists?





John Freck










> <PLONK>








> OM
>
> --
>
> "Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
> brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[OM]

n Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:43:06 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:47:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
>Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>>The whole writing style is different also.
>>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>>both share that same conceit).
>
>Bull****.

....No proof offered? Claim fails, eh?

AndrOM

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[OM]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:46:09 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:36:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
><om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made
>the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>>>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>>>>The whole writing style is different also.
>>>>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>>>>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>>>>both share that same conceit).
>>>
>>>Bull****.
>>
>>...No proof offered? Claim fails, eh?
>
>Pat has offered no proof for his absurd claim.

....He doesn't have to, Rand. You tend to provide it *for* him.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

[Rand Simberg]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:47:42 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>The whole writing style is different also.
>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>both share that same conceit).

Bull****.

[Rand Simberg]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:36:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made
the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>>>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>>>The whole writing style is different also.
>>>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>>>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>>>both share that same conceit).
>>
>>Bull****.
>
>...No proof offered? Claim fails, eh?

Pat has offered no proof for his absurd claim.

[Rand Simberg]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:14:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made
the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:46:09 GMT, (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:36:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
>><om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made
>>the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>>>>Although CT was anti-space militarization and this guy is for it.
>>>>>The whole writing style is different also.
>>>>>CT would state he was smarter than anyone he was posting to (which is
>>>>>why I wanted to see him and Rand Simberg get into a argument, as they
>>>>>both share that same conceit).
>>>>
>>>>Bull****.
>>>
>>>...No proof offered? Claim fails, eh?
>>
>>Pat has offered no proof for his absurd claim.
>
>...He doesn't have to, Rand. You tend to provide it *for* him.

Nope. His claim that I "state he was smarter than anyone he was
posting to" is utter nonsense, and there is zero evidence for it,
since it would require showing that I've never made a post in which I
failed to make such a claim. The reality, of course is that I rarely
even imply such a thing, and even more rarely state it.

His foolish comment really says much more about Pat than it does about
me.

[bombardmentforce]

> Bombardmentforce, on the other hand would just keep giving his Orion
>ships new abilities as objections were raised.

-----
In trying to predict bomber attrition rates, one of the most important
contributing factors is frequently overlooked, that is, the
unpredictable factor of tactics. I maintain that the commander and his
tactics, more than anything else, determine the losses in any offensive
action. The flexibility in SAC's penetration tactics makes it possible
to hold those losses to a minimum by affording a wide choice of
strategies.


Thomas S. Power's Design for Survival Page 172
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/design-for-survival-excerpt-5-tactics.html