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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #440795

Re: NASA Doesn't Know.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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. 

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