Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?

Eric, Please stop feeding the troll.

Don't crosspost these threads into the other newsgroups,
and stop responding to the dork at 4ax.com.

This also applies to everyone who's responding to
nuddles/vendicar as well. Just say no. Don't respond.
Don't respond and crosspost, particularly.

In fact. Let's do an experiment. How about nobody
crosspost *anything* except to other sci.* newsgroups
for a week, and let's see if any of the trolls survive.
Can people restrain themselves long enough to see if
this works?


-george william herbert
gherbert@xxxxxxxxx

In article <vcmb51lle70p36i2ojg1rob44irn9o6gpp@xxxxxxx>,
<America@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:52:00 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko) wrote:
>
>>Jordan correctly pointed out that oxygen, hydorgen and the other elements
>>are the same throughout the solar system and most probably the universe.
>
>Nobody had stated otherwise, though. You're spewing fallacies.
>
>>... caught up in the fiction.
>>Eric
>
>That must be why you're not dealing with the reality that you can't
>even keep yourself alive properly here on earth, much less anywhere
>else. You're not weaned off the tit of unsustainability.
>
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:53:49 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko) wrote:
>
>>When Columbus came to the New World
>
>It wasn't a place without air, water, and food.
>
>Can't you even figure that much out?
>
>>...religious dogma...
>>Eric
>
>You'll have to quit worshipping your Captain Kirk
>fantasies if you're ever to become a scientist.
>
>You need objectivity and the ability to determine
>what models need to become confirmable.
>
>On 5 Apr 2005 13:18:44 -0700, "Technological Illiterate Jordan"
><JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>Another one of Technological Illiterate's weird assumptions is that
>
>You can't even survive sustainably here, and you want to assume,
>weirdly, that you'd be able to survive elsewhere with any semblance
>of sustainability. Without it, you have problems you merely haven't
>yet considered.
>
>>elements such as hydrogen, oxygen etc. are somehow different on other
>>planets than they are on the Earth.
>
>You must be really stupid to say such things.
>
>>...Nobody has ever used any hydrogen [etc.] that didn't come
>>from the Earth..
>
>Nobody but you said that. You should try reading what actually
>was said, without those idiotic voices going in your head.
>
>On 5 Apr 2005 13:10:36 -0700, "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Where did you get the notion that space colonization advocates want to
>>"throw the Earth out?"
>
>Actions speak louder than words: it's what you're doing.
>
>>We want to have the Earth ...
>
>Really?
>
>Prove it.
>
><crickets>
>
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko) wrote:
>
>>Can you even imagine the earth in 2505?
>>
>>Eric
>
>The way you're going, humans will be extinct.
>
>On 4 Apr 2005 13:06:13 -0700, "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>... on a given planet.
>
>You won't get away with throwing this one out.
>
>You don't have that kind of time or resources.
>
>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko) wrote:
>
>>Okay, suppose you're right
>
>It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found
>by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it.
>
>>Again, what do you plan on doing about it?
>
>Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing
>a lot of learning about this issue long before now.
>
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>... have no point!
>
>You never get mine, either.
>
>>Totally false claim ... totally
>>unaware ...
>>Eric
>
>You like to pretend otherwise, though.
>
>It's not something you can hide.
>
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>... my point.
>
>Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate,
>and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly.
>
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>... obviously a troll...
>
>Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute
>your inane namecalling for a valid argument.
>
>My points stand.
>
>You're running out of any chance at survival on earth,
>as you dream of abandoning it for less.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1447921,00.html
>
>On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>... the guy who imagines space
>>colonization to be impossible.
>
>You're imagining things.
>
>If you can't properly sustain your life here, however,
>you have no chance at doing it elsewhere.
>
>If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it
>here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying
>to play "Star Trek".
>
>>First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle
>>biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space
>>hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds
>>to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of
>>wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy
>>plasma treatment, for example).
>
>To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it?
>
>>Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or
>>capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the
>>whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the
>>humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life
>>support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for
>>instance).
>
>You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way
>on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a
>year on nothing else.
>
>>Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate
>>the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere
>>Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more
>>ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For
>>instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar
>>colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every
>>Earthly ecosystem!)
>
>You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem
>you need to stay alive, much less healthy.
>
>>Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported
>>into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would
>>NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the
>>technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near
>>Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead
>>be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in
>>detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic
>>chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's
>>(most of it since the 1850's).
>
>Where has it been implemented and shown to function?
>
><crickets>
>
>>Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere
>>in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining
>>them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would
>>require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers,
>>or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological
>>Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly
>>suspect he will, before I explain why).
>
>Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone.
>
>Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't
>doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem.
>
>>Sixthly and finally,
>
>You're at zero for all.
>
>>the argument that we "need to learn to live
>>sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for
>>no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain
>>human factions _will_ colonize other worlds.
>
>You worship in an odd cult.
>
>You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast.
>
>>If we'd waited to
>>colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in
>>Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World.
>
>You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's
>not even a fitting analogy, do you.
>
>>Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite
>>seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and
>>rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years,
>>and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to
>>forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new
>>achievements will be made over the next couple decades.
>
>The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either.
>
>
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>... space is different than the earth ...
>
>You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably
>here, so you won't be able to do so in space.
>
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>... confused...
>>Eric
>
>You sure are.
>
>You can't do in space what you can't do here.
>
>You don't even realize that much.
>
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>So you didn't vote for Bush?
>
>Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush?
>
>>Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha!
>
>You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative,
>not a liberal.
>
>My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing.
>
>>Then who is a Republican that you like?
>
>Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread?
>
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>I'll check it.
>
>Do that. Post if you manage to get it.
>
>>Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the
>>problem?
>
>It isn't solving the problem, and will be made
>impossible, eventually, by the problem.
>
>You really need to catch up - you're way behind.
>
>>... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ...
>
>That explains your failure to reason, anyway.
>
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>You have stated no facts ...
>
>You are mistaken, yet again.
>
>I have stated the fact that current agricultural
>practices are unsustainable. This is reality of
>which many experts are similarly aware.
>
>http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-The-Environ-Prob.html
>http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg/talks/fall2003talks.htm
>http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/
>
>>...When was the last time you
>>planted a tree?
>
>I've planted more trees than you could count.
>
>You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though.
>
>You poor thing.
>
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>...I challenged your beliefs...
>
>Correction: I stated facts you can't refute.
>
>You seem desperate to keep telling your lies.
>
>>...cling to them like a baby does a
>>blanket.
>
>You sure do.
>
>>Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the
>>Democrats and claim to be a Republican?
>
>You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's
>not surprising from you at all.
>
>You imagine you'd not be an overall burden
>rather than a benefit to your environment, too.
>
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>...Could you be wrong?
>
>You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated.
>
>>I guess I should stop voting then?
>
>Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless
>you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened.
>
>>Are you ...
>
>I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what
>it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies
>preoccupy you entirely?
>
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>You have stated your opinion ...
>
>Actually, I've referred to salient facts.
>
>>I voted for Kerry.
>
>Your vote will never really count again, as long as
>paperless DRE voting systems are in use.
>
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>Well it does differ from your undefined definition.
>
>You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate
>usage to the standard denotation of the term.
>
>>I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms.
>
>You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated
>and factual responses to your baseless claims.
>
>>So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office?
>
>Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and
>preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real
>conservative at all.
>
>His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA
>for generations, now.
>
>They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies
>of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a
>fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII.
>
>>To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no.
>
>My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all
>polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of
>neural functions.
>
>>Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means.
>
>Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from
>space than you'd have to expend getting there?
>
>>Again, it will happend [sic] despite ...
>
>Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country
>to pad his pockets?
>
>Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it
>takes to become better acquainted with it.
>
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>... we have evolved in the last 500 years.
>
>You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning
>of the word "evolved".
>
>>Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into
>>space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers
>>like you.
>
>You're not seeing the entire picture: you will never be
>able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you
>never learn how to survive sustainably.
>
>>Learn how the human body reacts in space.
>
>It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly.
>
>I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile
>of resources confirming it.
>
>>manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on
>>earth.
>
>You're already manufacturing pure horse***, and
>you don't even need the horse.
>
>>Ask the Germans ...
>
>They say we're repeating their big mistake by
>letting a follower of their fuhrer into the
>White House.
>
>>... the
>>nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries.
>
>It's unsustainable because it wastes resources
>including potable water and topsoil.
>
>>soiled and damaged.
>
>Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted.
>
>Some of those pollutants damage neural functions.
>
>Thanks for serving as an example.
>
>>... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually
>>be able to 'mine' space.
>
>For what? At what cost?
>
>>...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity
>>on earth. Not possible!
>
>So what?
>
>Those are simulable anyway.
>
>>... one can really only
>>speak for themself [sic] ...
>
>When you do so, you prove repeatedly that
>you're not sufficiently educated.
>
>>... to be closeminded ...
>
>If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends
>in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might
>even realize the implications wrt space colonization ...
>
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe.
>
>Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived.
>
>Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to
>teach you how to grow Mars-maize.
>
>>The word is "yet".
>
>You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably
>here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you
>have no business trying to take your show on the road.
>
>>Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere
>>in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource
>>inherently NOT from Earth.
>
>To what useful purpose?
>
><crickets>
>
>>Why do you say that?
>
>You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow.
>
>>Yes we can!
>
>You have never even attempted to support yourself with
>a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried.
>
>>...closemindedness.
>
>You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home.
>
>>How do you know that?
>
>What resources would you return from space, and what
>would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there?
>
>>I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic].
>
>Those things are available on Earth.
>
>>We have been farming for millennia.
>
>You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying
>resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem
>you'd be starved in a short while.
>
>>...depression ...
>
>If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to
>do better with living where you are.
>
>>Says you!
>
>I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've
>failed to refute what they've taught me.
>
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>...No more food ...
>
>You couldn't even sustain yourself here,
>and you want to believe you could farm
>on Mars.
>
>Tsk.
>
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>... the troll...
>
>You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that
>the only valid basis for you to move to another home
>is to have taken proper care of your present abode,
>and you just can't stand that fact.
>
>> particularly
>>annoying
>
>It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than
>do any learning.
>
>>... spamming...
>
>There's yet another word you don't understand, because
>in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call
>names than deal with the subject.
>
>I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever.
>
>Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any
>better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should
>be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course.
>
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly,
>>inconceivably, stupidly wrong ...
>
>If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state.
>
>>1. Oxygen...
>
>Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't
>originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
>technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
>
>Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
>require that more resources be removed from Earth.
>
>>2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful
>>elements...
>
>Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't
>originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
>technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
>
>Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
>require that more resources be removed from Earth.
>
>>3. Hydrogen.
>
>Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't
>originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
>technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
>
>Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
>require that more resources be removed from Earth.
>
>>These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right
>
>Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive
>without extensive additional resources being brought
>along from Earth.
>
>>.. there's no point in bothering
>>with ...
>
>You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into
>space because you've failed so severely here that you're
>going to run and hide.
>
>No surprise there.
>
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>What nonsense.
>
>I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need
>they must take with them from Earth.
>
>You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced
>to try to lie about it.
>
>>The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by
>>the total resources of the solar system.
>
>Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using
>those from Earth.
>
>>Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their
>>supplies.
>
>Actually, it'd be all of them.
>
>You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth.
>
>You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency.
>
>>Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in
>>space.
>
>Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on
>that investment in such artificially-supplied resources.
>
>> (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many
>>environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth,
>>providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new
>>products.)
>
>Name one.
>
>>You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a
>>farm there.
>
>You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do
>so in space.
>
>It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant
>of the realities involved.
>
>> That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it
>>will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a
>>nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have
>>long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance.
>
>Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness.
>
>If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt
>to eat anything here on Earth.
>
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources
>>from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this?
>
>Do you honestly believe otherwise?
>
>It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there.
>Everything they need and use has to be brought with
>them and originates here on Earth.
>
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other
>>benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc.
>
>Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms
>of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains
>that more people are being forced to get by with less.
>
>You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them
>to joyride around in space.
>
>>And yet, they're still better off than in the past.
>
>That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them
>don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater
>proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access
>to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the
>increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them.
>
>>What a stupid statement.
>
>I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you
>consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable,
>considering the concept of projection.
>
>http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/poverty100504.cfm
>
>There's some more reality ...
>
>>You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in
>>London a couple centuries ago.
>
>While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of
>pollution have in fact worsened.
>
>http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2003/LINKS/Pollution/Pollution-Significant/
>
>>Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get
>>cancer,
>
>So why do you claim they're up among wildlife?
>
>You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too?
>
>How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers?
>
>"Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent,
>brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by
>40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased
>300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..."
>
>http://www.cancer-articles.com/cancer/cancer-articles/brain-cancer/brain-cancer-article-6853.html
>
>> instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up
>>with cures.
>
>Such as AIDS?
>
>> Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet
>>come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity.
>
>Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places
>wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and
>stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of
>the ad hominem fallacy above.
>
>>...health-care plan simply didn't cover it.
>
>Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you.
>
>>...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ...
>
>You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not
>honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected.
>
>No doubt you make all that noise as you run away.
>
>>*plonk*
>
>QED.
>
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Because it's true?
>
>Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it.
>
>Here's a space reserved for you to do just that:
>
>[empty]
>
>>Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true.
>
>Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary,
>it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number
>of people in a household.
>
>http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/papers/orshansky.html
>
>There are also more people going without healthcare
>in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population.
>
>>People at all levels are living much better than they did a few
>>decades ago.
>
>I've already supplied links which would help you dispel
>your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident
>to have a look at them.
>
>It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are
>forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but
>one example.
>
>Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also
>don't qualify as "living much better", either.
>
>>People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty
>>a few hundred years ago.
>
>Actually, many of the poor don't live at all.
>
>http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm
>
>Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a
>nature never before seen in history:
>
>http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/sustainable_development/pollution_and_poverty/
>
>Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to
>those who don't have healthcare, too.
>
>>By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because
>>Samual Langley's aerodrome failed.
>
>That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said.
>
>I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of
>scientific thought here.
>
>You, however, have. You want to believe you could
>somehow create sustenance from materials which are
>not shown to be useful toward that purpose.
>
>>...wasted bandwidth ...
>>... cowardly illogical troll ...
>
>Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because
>you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has
>been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles.
>
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>...nutbaggery ...
>
>That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans
>should colonize extra-terrestrial locations.
>
>>... it's only because there are more people
>>now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest
>>it's ever been in the history of the world.
>
>Why would anyone believe that?
>
>Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is
>increasing, as a matter of fact.
>
>That right there blows your claim out of the water.
>
>>Which has zero relevance to anything in particular.
>
>Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't
>work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that
>there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon,
>or anywhere else.
>
>>Since few people think ...
>
>That's why so many are careless about throwing away
>the resources we should sustain here on Earth.
>
>>When there was a single attempt and a single failure
>
>That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why
>do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a
>subject of which you are ignorant?
>
>>We do know how to do it properly here.
>
>Why would anyone imagine that?
>
>The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources
>which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment.
>
>>... illogical nutbaggery ...
>
>What a shame that's all you have.
>
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly"
>>for four billion years
>
>Give or take a few mass extinctions ...
>
>>and humans have been surviving just fine since
>
>Not considering that we're becoming more diseased
>and wasting more of our resources just to maintain
>a substandard quality of life for most of our population ...
>
>>...We're
>>continuing to survive just fine.
>
>Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically,
>potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term.
>
>More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now.
>
>http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html
>
>>Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not*
>>surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible
>>argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly"
>>(whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously
>>false one.
>
>I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed.
>
>Those who want to believe that we can just throw the
>Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't
>doing the thinking they should.
>
>>... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and
>>work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables
>>us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it
>>is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here).
>
>When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical
>reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one
>in space, though.
>
>>... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let
>>alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable."
>
>Why would anyone believe that?
>
>>It requires
>>raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations,
>>ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are
>>abundant in the solar system.
>
>It requires more than that - without, for example, green
>plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve.
>
>>...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing
>>your home away."
>
>In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea
>of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies.
>
>When it becomes too contaminated to support our life,
>that's throwing it away, too.
>
>>The Earth will be here for billions of years, will
>>most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come,
>>and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem.
>
>Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real,
>besides waste scarce resources and create pollution?
>
>> Indeed, many space
>>enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of
>>off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on
>>the Earth.
>
>Name one.
>
>>Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the
>>wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea
>>would be ridiculous.
>
>That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that
>if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it.
>
>>Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that
>>we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place.
>>This is just simple common sense.
>
>What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with
>less waste and spread.
>
>It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too.
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002047307_sprawl27.html
>
>>You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false.
>
>Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by
>known facts.
>
>>It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing
>>magical about recycling or growing crops.
>
>On the moon? On Mars?
>
>>...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth
>>until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't
>>colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling.
>>We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we
>>can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the
>>tundra.
>
>That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why.
>
>There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that.
>
>>Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given
>>the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to
>>humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable
>>to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have
>>that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us.
>
>Why would anyone believe that we'd have the
>'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in
>space, when we don't even know how to do
>that properly here, where it's so much easier?
>
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>(Eric Chomko)
>wrote:
>
>>You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were
>>meant to fly, then God would have given him wings".
>
>No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend
>more than you can afford to play in space.
>
>I know for a fact that you can't survive properly
>here, and that you won't be able to do so on any
>other planet if you don't learn how on the one
>that spawned you.
>
>You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings.
>You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done.
>You want to keep using up resources when if you
>had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle.
>
>>As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is
>>suicide.
>
>Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet
>awaits is ludicrous.
>
>You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's
>your suicide.
>
>>In short, to survive, it MUST be done...
>
>You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit
>throwing your home away as you pretend there'd
>somehow be a replacement waiting.
>
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any
>>environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the
>>atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've
>>done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many
>>orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting
>>so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the
>>macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can
>>maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal
>>arrogance on our part.
>>
>>Brad
>
>Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans?
>
>We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here.
>
>You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere.
>
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial
>>period or up into the tundra, with no technology ...
>
>Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra
>has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed?
>
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall <fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>This explains so much. You think ...
>
>Why don't you?
>
>In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable
>environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't.
>
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live
>>properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an
>>island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area.....
>
>You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you.
>
>If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment
>rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any
>other environments to damage.
>
>> ...Minds are growing
>>more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more
>>thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute.
>
>Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering
>from the impairments you have know that we must learn
>how to live properly here before we have any business
>going anywhere else.
>
>On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner
><roystgnrNO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge?
>
>No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna".
>
>>... it's [sic] biological homelands.
>
>You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you?
>
>Apparently not ...
>
>>... to expand to new territories ...
>
>You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life
>when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would.
>
>>... I think ...
>
>Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek'
>fantasies, you don't ...
>
>On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>... to colonize the Solar System...
>
>How very silly: humans haven't even figured out
>how to live properly on earth, the one planet
>that tends to favor their existence.


.

Quantcast