Re: Bush Administration Kills Hubble Space Telescope

casioculture_at_gmail.com
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: 26 Jan 2005 17:59:21 -0800

gregg wrote:
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:13:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, gregg
> > <saville@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a
> > way as to indicate that:
> >
> >>Rand Simberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I wouldn't waste pixels on him, George.
> >>
> >>Though you do...endlessly.....
> >
> > Actually, I don't. He's been in my killfile for a couple days.
Note
> > that my reply was to George's reply to him...
>
> Couple of days???? I don't think so.
>

Usenet archives will forever chronicle that Rand Simberg seems to
believe the definition of the word "troll" conveniently includes
someone whom **you** start to pester with frivolous ad hominem
attempts-at-intimidation, time and again, and who stays with the topic
and presents the evidence-for-the-obvious that you preposterously
refute and demand. He seems to also think that the function of the
"killfile" is to be a last recourse of desperation after all your
abusive personal attacking and pathetic blind denial exhaustively fail
to persuade you and others that you're winning a debate that you
approached with the 'mentality' of a brainless dogfight.

Please ask him if he's "still awaiting some evidence of creationists in
the White House, or that they influence space policy.", which he
insistently repeated and emphasized more than once, given that in his
previous post he said "The administration doesn't want to continue to
spend money on Hubble at all, because it sees it as a distraction from
the president's new space initiative", and later post he said "that -
During his election campaign, George W Bush made the following
assertion "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how
***God created the Earth***." - doesn't mean he's a creationist, though
even if it does, it doesn't matter."

Nevermind it being even more explicit phrasing than the creationists'
stickers "evolution is a theory, not a fact", and that Bush never made
secret of his devout evangelism, if "it doesn't matter" why did he
argue over it and insistently repeat and emphasize, all along up to
that point and time and again, his demand for evidence that 'ANYONE' in
the Bush White House is a creationist, or why did he then in his reply
just a few hours later, on a similar argument about YET ANOTHER
evangelist in the Bush administration, suddenly decide and try to
persuade "folks" that I'm "troll" or that a he should "killfile" my
posts?!! I would think an 'internet security consultant' should know
what a "troll" really is or what a "killfile" is originally for, but
thankfully not everyone of "folks" is as deluded as he seems.

Also, please advise him that after pleading "please don't ever change
that attitude. It will keep clueless Democrats out of power for a long,
long time.", and immediately after linking to a Fox News column of all
media, that he doesn't sound credible, in fact, it sounds incredibly
ironic, when he points at others and claim "some people are just
hopelessly partisan when it comes to discussing policy, whether space
or otherwise".

PS: do him a favour if you wish and quote this above in its entirety
for his convenience, as I suspect that, from the egoistic shelter of
hiding behind the replies of others and his "killfile", he seems to be
still 'wasting pixels on me'. Maybe he'll learn in that canine 'mind'
of his that if he doesn't want others to bite him then he shouldn't
approach them with a growl.

>
> Whether it's this newsgroup or others you are still responding
directly to
> him, and it's getting posted here. Dunno if you posted your reply
here, but
> it comes here and anyways that's irrelevant. As of 10:15 am UTC today
you
> are still "wasting pixels" on him...
>
>
> I read the email below, just a few minutes ago. Note today's date:
>
>
> Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
> From:
> Rand Simberg <simberg.interglobal@org.trash>
> Date:
> Wednesday 26 January 2005 10:14:55 am
> Groups:
> alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.bush,sci.space.policy
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:47:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >On futher thought, if we are going to the moon and Mars, ISS won't
save
> >us. If we fear going to HST then how are we expected to go back to
the
> >moon and on to Mars?
>
> That's the first intelligent question I've seen you ask in months, if
> not years.
>
>
>
>
> And then there's this one:
>
>
> Re: Bush cancels Hubble telescope rescue mission
> From:
> Rand Simberg <simberg.interglobal@org.trash>
> Date:
> Wednesday 26 January 2005 10:14:13 am
> Groups:
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:51:32 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >: >This is not a particular limitation of the shuttle; it is a
fundamental
> >: >fact of orbital mechanics that Plane Changes In Low Earth Orbit
Are
> >: >Expensive. No currently available manned spacecraft could
possibly
> travel
> >: >from HST to ISS - the minimum delta-V required (3.1 km/s) is
comparable
> >: >to that required to get to the moon from LEO. The only historical

> >: >spacecraft that could pull it off (and even then, not all the
time - the
> >: >*maximum* delta-V is 9.8 km/s!) would have been the Apollo
CSM/S-IVB.
> >
> >: And one would think that anyone who has been posting to, and
> >: supposedly reading, this newsgroup for as many years as Eric has
would
> >: surely know that, since it's been discussed numerous times over
the
> >: years. But that would take a modicum of intelligence, and ability
to
> >: absorb knowledge.
> >
> >But it CAN be done as stated, we simply lack the craft.
>
> We don't "simply lack the craft." We lack the *ability to build such
> a craft*. Hence the appropriate crack about transporters.
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
>

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
>

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
>
        
                
                        http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Senator Al (and not Al Gore)
    ... I had you in the killfile ... Maybe Jim was quoting you and never wrote the line ... of the Bush administration was made under the name of George Z. Bush and I ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Senator Al (and not Al Gore)
    ... I had you in the killfile ... Maybe Jim was quoting you and never wrote the line ... of the Bush administration was made under the name of George Z. Bush and I ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: There is Word War III, Bush is Hitler and Americans are brainwashed into fascism
    ... You have been treating it as your personal blog, ... Because otherwise, you end up in a killfile, ... But Bush is a symptom of those that don't follow rules, ... be a world war III, it is not anybodys business, go to a WWIII noose ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: There is Word War III, Bush is Hitler and Americans are brainwashed into fascism
    ... You have been treating it as your personal blog, ... non-astronomy related topics. ... Because otherwise, you end up in a killfile, ... But Bush is a symptom of those that don't follow rules, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: What is "pointing" missiles?
    ... Rand Simberg wrote: ... could have its C & C decapitated with great ease by just a few warheads. ... I'm going to killfile you now, even though it would almost be more fun not to, as your about the most amusingly bad-tempered thing since Donald Duck. ... But you never offer a critique, but only insults, and although you are very good for tearing into others whose opinions you disagree with you never give any of your own ideas, and therefore stay well above any possible criticism of them by others. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast