Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 15:09:19 -0500 Message-ID: <5749FAFB.7957@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 13:09:31 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy Subject: Re: NASA Doesn't Know. References: <5745EC62.C36@ix.netcom.com> <5oudnShZIIVgitTKnZ2dnUU78THNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 124 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-S5D7zYXlzMdOyDJEgM0i1Avk7uURzj5OdD1xGXEb7PSQW4m+R/2VzkeEvr6fFx9fy8rxUaR9TXFZQKa!4qPbhxqjNbY9BC+OM/kthUJVNfVyuLrc+6WAk5D3CyvLVnsF1JPVVrtU+cKqPZ+ewyqfwwavO9fx!pvQTaR/wygw= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 6113 Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:440822 sci.physics:581279 sci.physics.relativity:384513 alt.astronomy:284993 Bast wrote: > > David Mitchell wrote: > > On 27/05/16 11:42, Bast wrote: > >> David Mitchell wrote: > >>> On 26/05/16 11:48, Bast wrote: > >>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> How Big Are Those Killer Asteroids? ... NASA Doesn't Know. > >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/science/asteroids-nathan-myhrvold-nasa.html?_r=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I can tell you a lot of what..NASA Doesn't Know. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> but then you would call me a NAZA denier. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nasa has no reason to provide answers. > >>>> They get paid for research,....as long as they say "we are still > >>>> looking for the answers", they get paid. > >>>> If they suddenly gave us all the answers they would be out of work. > >>>> > >>>> Same reason that money going to cancer research will never provide a > >>>> cure for cancer. > >>>> Nobody wants to put themselves out of a nice lucrative cushy job. > >>> > >>> You're an idiot. > >>> > >>> 1) Cancer research is neither "lucrative", nor "cushy" for those > >>> actually doing the work. > >>> 2) The prognosis for someone with cancer is infinitely better now than > >>> even 20 years ago. Why do you think that is? Sorry, I know thinking > >>> isn't your strong point: it's because of the research. That's how it > >>> works. 3) The people actually doing the research are almost all what > >>> one might describe as "academics". Apart from the joy of learning, > >>> and the knowledge that one is doing something worthwhile, the one > >>> thing which academics prize above all is the respect of their peers. > >>> Having published work cited and used is the way in which this is > >>> expressed. It is absolutely, therefore, in their best interest to > >>> both do good work, and to publish it. > >>> > >>> The French have a saying: "A man does not look behind a door where he > >>> would not hide himself" > >>> > >>> I know you're not very bright, so I'll explain: for most people, the > >>> first guide they have as to how others will behave is how they would > >>> behave themselves. For some people, it's all they have, others draw > >>> on wider sources. If you believe that a large number of people would > >>> take vast amounts of money, much of it raised by charities, and > >>> fritter it away whilst pretending to work, thus denying it to others > >>> who might, perhaps, actually do the work, then you belive that large > >>> numbers of people are immoral assholes. > >>> > >>> I think that you see too much of yourself in other people. > >>> > >>> In summary: > >>> You're an idiot, > >>> "Research" has raised the survival rate for most cancers from > >>> "fuck-all" to "reasonable". > >>> You're an immoral asshole. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Do you feel better now ? > > > > Well, you're still an asshole, so no. > > > >> So which do you work for?, Nasa, or the "medical" industry ? > > > > Neither. > > > >> > >> People are still dying of cancer everyday,....no one has a better > >> prognosis than they did years ago, and far more people are being > >> diagnosed with cancer, than ever before. > > > > Well yes. That's a good thing. Are you actually reading what you write > > 'cos I may have to recalibrate my stupid-o-meter. > > > >> It just costs more to keep them alive, for a bit longer. But they > >> still die, > > > > Well yes, everybody does. The goal of cancer research isn't to make > > people immortal. > > > > The goal is to understand the causes of cancer and devise treatments to > > either "cure" it or allow more quality time once it's diagnosed. > > > > In fact, cancer survival rates have doubled in the last 40 years, and > > now 50% of people survive for more than 10 years (in England and Wales). > > > >> and the reaserch money machine, keeps pumping out more money > >> So your strawman arguments have no fact, to back them up at all. > > > > Wow. Is this how you "reason" in real life? > > > > You state, yourself, that "far more people are being diagnosed with > > cancer, than ever before", which is unquestionably a good thing, and one > > of the key factors in cancer treatment. > > > > Cancer survival rates have doubled in the last forty years. Doubled. > > > > So your argument that cancer research is just a money making scam, and > > has no real effect must be looking a little foolish now, even to you. > > > > By the way, I think that you should look up what a straw man argument > > is. > > Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > When you have to resort to wikipedia for credibility,.....YOU LOSE. If anyone has to resort to wikipedia they are worthless. You're better off pointing to a kook website...at least the kook has a name and emaill address and a basement.