You are very wrong in using that word, because it implies a deliberate attempt on my part to mislead, which I assure you wasn’t the case. Rather than clarifying, you throw insults. Fine I was wrong about velcro. Live and learn. But I don’t see why me being wrong justifies you accusing me of prevarication. You could have simply explained calmly why I was wrong, and I would have said, “OK,” but that isn’t your style. You attack. You accuse. You insult. You question the morality of people you have never met. Why??

Look we don’t all have our PhD’s from Carnegie Mellon. I thought that this was a board where enthusiasts discuss ideas, exchange thoughts. You obviously don’t. For you it seems to be a place to slam people who are not as well versed in engineering as you are so I guess you can stroke your ego.

I would have said that we each bring talents to this board that are unique. I am a doctoral student in history, so naturally I bring insights you don’t. If you got something wrong or were mistaken about something, I wouldn’t accuse you of prevarication, dishonesty, lying, etc.; but apparently your rhetorical forte is Cicero’s ad hominem fallacy.

For you, the purpose of online communities seems to be about “winning.” And “winning” is best done by name calling. Lets just turn the internet into a land of Anne Coulter’s, whose first and only impulse is to fling insults. It’s no surprise that your blog has such little traffic with that attitude.

So fine, you’ll get what you asked for. I’ll refrain from posting, because I don’t want to be attacked as a liar any time I am wrong about something. I’d only ask that you think about what you gain from accusing someone of deliberately lying when you have no evidence for it that whatsoever. What is the point of winning an argument if you alienate the person who you are talking with? What is the point of online communities if a mistake is the equivalent of a deliberate lie?

Greg

I was refering to the earlier post claiming velcro and various other technologies as NASA spinoffs. Claims like this are poster children for the word ‘prevarication’.

If you do not like your statements being labeled for what they are, refrain from making them.

I haven’t been a Planetary Society member in many years (I dropped when I sensed that the society, along with NSS, was simply supporting whatever Goldin and NASA were doing). So, I don’t really know what Lou and the society have been saying about Bush’s plan since it was announced nearly 3 years ago. Were they skeptical, asking the right questions all along, or did they (like much of the rest of space community) simply embrace it like a parched man stuck for the years in the desert of LEO?

I’m wondering if his protests may be too little too late. It puts the onus on Congress to appropriate money it doesn’t really have for programs the administration doesn’t really care much about. With all the other priorities we have as a nation, that’s a hard sell.

I did not lie, and I am not sure why you are accusing me of it. As I said in my original post, I think spinoffs are a small — though tangible — benefit of the space program. And the fact of the matter is that I am not alone is this belief. Am I allowed to disagree with you without being accused of dishonesty?

Either you don’t really know the nuances of the twenty-five cent word you used, or more likely you are one of those people who accuse others of lying when they disagree with you in a policy. You would be a good screaming head on Crossfire. Congratulations. That is a sign of true intelligence. Your oratory style rivals the prowess of Bill O’Reilly, Micheal Moore, and Rush Limbaugh.

I much prefer rudeness to prevarication.

Greg

“Look at all the x-treme technology we developed that no other industry was willing [or yet willing] to pay for” is not the mantra of an enterprise that’s serious about moving from the expensive bleeding edge to the routine and affordable. It wouldn’t thrill the hardware junkies, but I for one would be much happier were NASA boasting about the use of off-the-shelf technologies that could provide adequate (not ultimate) performance at a much lower price.

I agree that NASA has lost its inspirational value. In fact, I think Mike Griffin would agree. Going around in circles in LEO for the last 25 years is not inspirational.

The biggest inspiration for today’s kids – to do their math & science homework these days – are the people who are becoming billionaires (and changing the world) because they are extremely good at math & science.

The dirty little secret is that our best and brightest are heading to Silicon Valley. They are not working in aerospace.

The real competition for these kids attention is not aerospace — but whether to work on Wall Street, or to become a lawyer. Both of these are relatively straight forward paths for a bright kid to become a millionaire (you still have to work hard … but it is a pretty straightforward path for a really bright hard working person who puts in their dues.)

In other words, our best and brightest have a straightforward path to becoming a millionaire, or they can roll the dice, and go for the big money. That is why they do their homework these days.

I have friends from who have taken all 3 of these paths.

– Al

It’s good for kids to be motivated by endeavors on the national scale, but it shouldn’t be one of the major reasons for the existence of these endeavors.