Re: Sickening Discussion

qed100_at_hotmail.com
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: 5 Jan 2005 04:18:49 -0800

Derek Lyons wrote:

> The problem isn't someone holding opposing views. (Even when those
> views are more on topic for .policy or .shuttle, not all sci.space.*
> groups are created equal.)

Don't hand me any crap about staying on topic. For one thing, I
disagree that what I said is off topic. Go back and see what I was
responding to in the first place. For another, you guys were jabbering
away about Lord Of The Rings not all that long ago. On topic? Gimme a
break. Citing 'on topic' is no more than a tactic on your part. It
sounds all too much like the 'law & order' mantra used by the police in
the '60s.

>
> The problem is someone that cannot post in the appropriate group,
> cannot differentiate his views and opinions and facts, and who is
> unwilling to be persuaded with fact.

Hah! If you think you've handed me any more hard empirical numbers than
I have to you, then you need to get back on Prozac.(tm)

> In fact, a lot of people here hold widely divergent opinions on many
> issues within the space field, and don't get 'hung' for them. In
> fact, many of them are highly respected in these groups. But they
> didn't come charging in like a adolescent bull in rut and then act
> surprised when people react badly.

I did nothing of the sort. You personally started this fight. Go back
and read it again, from the beginning. Ask Herb or Jud if I was
roasting them over hot coals. I'd say to ask LaDonna similarly, but
she's just like you & OM; believes that anyone who doesn't offer to
lick the *** off astronauts' boots is a traitor to humanity.

And I repeat: You have yet to state the charges. What did I say which
INITIALLY rankled you, and why did it. You aren't going to cough it up,
are you?

-Mark Martin

Quantcast