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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #440822

Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to rec.arts.sf.written | 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. "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. 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. 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

csiph-web