Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384593

Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

David Mitchell wrote:
> 
> On 29/05/16 11:30, Bast wrote:
> > David Mitchell wrote:
> >> On 28/05/16 10:41, 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.
> >>
> >> When you have to ignore all the salient points of an argument (because
> >> it show that you are wrong), and focus on the use of Wikipedia to
> >> provide an absolutely correct definition of a minor term, YOU LOSE.
> >>
> >> This is too easy.  You are beginning to bore me.
> >
> > You did not provide any "salient points"
> 
> So, apparently you already believe that "far more people are being
> diagnosed with cancer than ever before", and you've not even tried to
> disprove that "Cancer survival rates have doubled in the last forty years".


"far more people are being
 diagnosed with cancer than ever before"

and 

"Cancer survival rates have doubled in the last forty years".


because they are fradulent diagnois to funnel money into doctors
pockets. Once the doctors pockets gets filled, they  (the baby bommers),
are cured of cancer.


Come on, this is an easy scam for doctors  to perform.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

NASA Doesn’t Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 11:18 -0700
  Re: NASA Doesn’t Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 11:26 -0700
    Re: NASA Doesn’t Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700
      Re: NASA Doesn’t Know. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-25 21:07 -0500
        Re: Re: NASA Doesn’t Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 10:44 -0700
  Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-05-26 06:48 -0400
    Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 10:38 -0700
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-27 12:50 -0700
    Re: NASA Doesn't Know. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 05:31 +0100
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-05-27 06:42 -0400
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 05:01 +0100
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-05-28 05:41 -0400
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 13:09 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 05:34 +0100
              Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-05-29 06:30 -0400
                Re: NASA Doesn't Know. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 05:47 +0100
                Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-30 00:01 -0700
                Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-06-03 11:12 -0400
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:29 -0700
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-27 05:26 -0700
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-27 16:01 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-27 16:44 -0700
              Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-27 17:43 -0700
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-27 07:46 -0500
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 04:43 +0100
    Re: NASA Doesn't Know. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 22:24 -0700
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2016-05-28 05:49 -0400
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-28 06:48 -0700
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 13:11 -0700
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 09:10 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:19 -0700
      Re: NASA Doesn't Know. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-06-28 09:11 -0400

csiph-web