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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #441174

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".
> 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 

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