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

Groups > sci.physics > #580436 > unrolled thread

NASA Doesn’t Know.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 04:15 -0700
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:04 -0700
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:39 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 13:17 -0400
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 06:41 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:48 -0700
              Re: NASA Doesn't Know. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 05:55 -0700
            Re: NASA Doesn't Know. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 13:18 -0400
          Re: NASA Doesn't Know. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-26 14:49 -0500
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 13:08 -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. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-26 14:40 -0500
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-26 15:20 -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. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 03:37 -0700
                Re: NASA Doesn't Know. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 11:07 -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. 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. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-28 09:04 -0500
        Re: NASA Doesn't Know. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-27 16:01 -0700
      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. 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. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-06-28 09:11 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#580874 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580915 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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 ?
So which do you work for?, Nasa, or the "medical" industry ?

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.
It just costs more to keep them alive, for a bit longer. But they still die, 
and the reaserch money machine, keeps pumping out more money
So your strawman arguments have no fact, to back them up at all.


Have a nice day,...shill
Now go eat some of that yummy GMO franken-food. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581136 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581150 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581156 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Bast
- show quoted text -
When you have to resort to wikipedia for credibility,.....YOU LOSE. 
------------

Was watching a film last night with my girl titled Jennifer's Body. I really enjoyed it (mostly because I love Megan Fox). In it, a girl in class says "Of course it's true... It's in the Wikipedia!" 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581209 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

On 05/28/2016 06:37 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Bast
> - show quoted text -
> When you have to resort to wikipedia for credibility,.....YOU LOSE.
> ------------
>
> Was watching a film last night with my girl titled Jennifer's Body. I really enjoyed it (mostly because I love Megan Fox). In it, a girl in class says "Of course it's true... It's in the Wikipedia!"
>
HVAC loves porn. He tries to remember the days back when he till knew 
why he watched it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581279 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581381 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581403 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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"
Only opinions with no credible citations,....other than Wikopedia.
That's what happens when you "bore" too easily. A.D.D. is a terrible thing 
to bring to a discussion table.

The fact is you can not disprove any of my arguments, so resorted to 3rd 
grade name calling, and insults.
....You lost before I even made the first reply.

....Now go play with your NASA moon rocks, and leave the adults to discuss 
"big people things" in peace.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581642 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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".

My work here is done.

> That's what happens when you "bore" too easily. A.D.D. is a terrible thing
> to bring to a discussion table.

No, it's just that you *are* boring.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581652 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582599 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

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".
> My work here is done.
>
>> That's what happens when you "bore" too easily. A.D.D. is a terrible
>> thing to bring to a discussion table.
>
> No, it's just that you *are* boring.





But I got your attention, didn't I.
So AGAIN,...you can't keep your story straight.

Now  fr round two, would you like to try for,...

A: That Apollo was a hoax, and no men ever went to the moon,..and returned 
alive.
B: The 9/11 was an inside job 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580924 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:31:58 +0100, David Mitchell
wrote:

> The French have a saying: "A man does not look behind a door where he 
> would not hide himself"

So that's what your people are doing now? Sitting on
their asses checking stuff kids in middle school would
come up with doing? And this will find the cure for
cancer... Great.
-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581133 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

On 27/05/16 13:46, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:31:58 +0100, David Mitchell
> wrote:
>
>> The French have a saying: "A man does not look behind a door where he
>> would not hide himself"
>
> So that's what your people are doing now? Sitting on
> their asses checking stuff kids in middle school would
> come up with doing? And this will find the cure for
> cancer... Great.
>
My people?

White midddle-class computer programmers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581188 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

On Sat, 28 May 2016 04:43:37 +0100, David Mitchell
wrote:

> On 27/05/16 13:46, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:31:58 +0100, David Mitchell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The French have a saying: "A man does not look behind a door where he
>>> would not hide himself"
>>
>> So that's what your people are doing now? Sitting on
>> their asses checking stuff kids in middle school would
>> come up with doing? And this will find the cure for
>> cancer... Great.
>>
> My people?
> 
> White midddle-class computer programmers?

The people you were referring as doing their jobs
finding cure for cancer, etc. You brought that
"saying", well what else did you mean by it?
-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581109 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> 
> 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.


Most scientists will assure you that there is always an ethical way to test an important hypothesis. 
But ask them in private and they’ll confess that the dark, unethical side has its appeal. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8702999/Unethical-scientific-experiments-going-to-extremes.html


Yes, the majority are immoral.


wat planet are you from?


Ever heard of NASA? all immoral judging by their news releases on planet nine and all the other junk they put out.


They are cold, heartless and immoral...all of them.



Why does Albert Einstein design bombs that kill people???? FUCKIN IMMORAL!


And Obama has to go over to Japan and say, "Sorry, it's those fuckin scientist and albert einstein were out of control."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/27/the-world-was-forever-changed-here-obamas-words-at-the-hiroshima-peace-memorial-in-japan/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581143 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

"Bast"  wrote in message news:ni6k0i$hlv$1@dont-email.me...


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.


*** Sort of like those Global Warming clowns ... if they couldn't convince
assholes like Nigger Obama and twat Pelosi that humans are responsible
for a basic warming - cooling cycle of Nature, they'd be out of a job, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581152 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Hägar wrote:
> "Bast"  wrote in message news:ni6k0i$hlv$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> *** Sort of like those Global Warming clowns ... if they couldn't
> convince assholes like Nigger Obama and twat Pelosi that humans are
> responsible for a basic warming - cooling cycle of Nature, they'd be out 
> of a job,
> too.





I sure hate it when I have to agree with you.
Especially as the global warming cultists all claim that with enough money, 
the problem will be solved.
.....Words worthy of any hellfire and brimstone preaching TV evangelist. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581281 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Bast wrote:
> 
> Hägar wrote:
> > "Bast"  wrote in message news:ni6k0i$hlv$1@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > *** Sort of like those Global Warming clowns ... if they couldn't
> > convince assholes like Nigger Obama and twat Pelosi that humans are
> > responsible for a basic warming - cooling cycle of Nature, they'd be out
> > of a job,
> > too.
> 
> I sure hate it when I have to agree with you.
> Especially as the global warming cultists all claim that with enough money,
> the problem will be solved.

Like the doctor says "Why is this patient still here, his insurance paid
up, now he's cured."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581473 — Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:5749FB87.34AF@ix.netcom.com...

Bast wrote:
>
> Hägar wrote:
> > "Bast"  wrote in message news:ni6k0i$hlv$1@dont-email.me...
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > *** Sort of like those Global Warming clowns ... if they couldn't
> > convince assholes like Nigger Obama and twat Pelosi that humans are
> > responsible for a basic warming - cooling cycle of Nature, they'd be out
> > of a job,
> > too.
>
> I sure hate it when I have to agree with you.
> Especially as the global warming cultists all claim that with enough 
> money,
> the problem will be solved.

Like the doctor says "Why is this patient still here, his insurance paid
up, now he's cured."


*** Seems you have that phony "Global Warming" boogeyman mixed
up with that other Liberal piece of "If you like your blah,blah,blah"
verbal diarrhea, aka Obamacare ... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web