Re: Dejan's Posts
|> I think it is very tangential to the intent for which this list
|> was created.
|
|Maybe, but there are politer ways of expressing that point of view.
|
|sf-discuss is for any space related issues; the prefered bias is
|towards tourism/private enterprise/people in space, that's all.
Thank you very much, it seems that I will not have to be committed after
all ;), nah, seriously now, I really appreciate that more then one
person took the time to really read my message and the accompanying
article, and see the relavence, the points of which I have raised, and
Mr. Wainwright has elucidated.
My political "rants" are of course not such, if you want those you can
look to others who will gladly provide that ;), it was a little humorous
critique I added on to the article to display the ridiculousness of it
all, perhaps some didn't like it, but then they don't have to read it,
nor do they have to shout it down by declaring it irrelevant, etc. I
understand if that if my article (and the accompanying little humorous
thing) did not mention the word "space" at all it could justifiably be
called irrelevant. But then others have posted articles on this very
mail list which did not have a word at all about space in them (if you
want I can look them up for you, but I'm sure whoever has done this
know's who they are ;).
Understandably, political critiques and statements should be kept to a
minimum in a discussion forum dedicated to as Mr. Wainwright puts it,
"sf-discuss is for any space related issues; the prefered bias is
|towards tourism/private enterprise/people in space, that's all."
However, I do think that everyone should be allowed some "breathing
room" with this guideline (emphasis not on "rule") and that even
"tangential" statements should be permitted even if they are little
asides here and there. I certainly didn't have a problem with any
previous statements on this list (at least by an serious people that
posted more then one message here) even if they were "tangential" and
even if I did disagree with them vehemently, which you can well imagine
I do, quite often ;). But I don't shout them down, or otherwise
complain, if I have some bone to pick with them, I will engage them in a
civil debate, on the issues at hand, and if their tone, behavior,
language, etc., annoy me, I also might address this but in a civil
manner, and perhaps in a personal e-mail and not in the public forum,
just as Mr. Wainwright has said:
|I may not totally agree with everything he says, but that's the
|point of a debate. If we could have one, I'd be very happy...
================
|At it happens, I just received a longish item on a similar
|subject which I was considering posting for general interest - I'll
|see if I can dig it up out of the huge pile of email I have here.
"General interest,"oooh, after all this, very dangerous ;). I look
forward to the posting if you can find the article, etc., to which you
are referring.
Thanks again to everyone who has helpfully and constructively
contributed their thoughts, as I was telling Mr. Prasad (i.e., Kamal)
I've been subscribed to this forum for quite a while, and as I've
already said even though I may disagree with at least a couple of people
vehemently on idealogical (political, etc.) issues as well as their way
of presenting their opinions, etc., I think the benefits more then
outweigh these negatives, and I look forward to continuing in the
discussion in this forum.
______________________________________________
" The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the
world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is
one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the
dominant political mythology. "
Michael Parenti, political scientist and author
==============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Wainwright <pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 11:24 AM
Subject: Dejan's Posts
|Mark and everyone.
|
|> I think it is very tangential to the intent for which this list
|> was created.
|
|Maybe, but there are politer ways of expressing that point of view.
|
|sf-discuss is for any space related issues; the prefered bias is
|towards tourism/private enterprise/people in space, that's all.
|
|My own thoughts: Military applications of space vehicles is relevant
|both because it can lead to new civilian-applicable technologies,
|but might also serve to stifle them - remember what happened to the
|British HOTOL. Playing the 'military' card could be a very effective
|way of slowing down public access to space for a long time. Then
|again, the DC-X was an SDIO program, and that arguably started
|the whole ball rolling, as well as stinging NASA into creating the
|X33 (and then not awarding it to MDD).
|
|> I'll defer to Peter to determine whether your rants are too much or
|> are value added.
|
|Actually I find Dejan's postings to be interesting and informative.
|I may not totally agree with everything he says, but that's the
|point of a debate. If we could have one, I'd be very happy...
|
|At it happens, I just received a longish item on a similar
|subject which I was considering posting for general interest - I'll
|see if I can dig it up out of the huge pile of email I have here.
|
|--
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|Peter Wainwright Cybrid Technology Ltd. Peter.Wainwright@xxxxxxxxxx
|=[ http://www.spacefuture.com ]=[ Peter.Wainwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ]=
|
|--
|Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject
"unsubscribe"
|www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".
|
|