I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   [...]

Translation:  It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
to Which You MUST Subscribe...

Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
degree.  If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.

You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you?
  [not incredibly clear explanation of complaints...something between
   feelings regarding Nick's method, and judgments about his meaning]

T

F

*** Fred's issue #1;  Nick's alleged trashing of others ***

I only got it when you stopped trashing, and made your point patently,
instead of 'allegorically'.  That was my point all along, Fred.





I see we are dealing with a problem in a conflict of interpretations, not
least of which is your belief that only you can adequately judge what is
and is not debate.  Suffice to say that I disagree with you on that last
point.  Why don't you take a poll, Fred, if you want some psuedo-objective
point-of-view?

And, as usual, you defend your insults with "he started it."  "Yeah, I
took some of his research and called it my own, but he started it."  "So
what if I stole his car, he stole my lawnmower first."  Besides that, I
think it's still open to interpretation whether Nick actually did start it.
So your defense, besides being lame, and contradicting the first part of
the sentence in which it occurs, may not even apply anyway.

Your defense reminds me of the guy that broke the borrowed tool:  "I
never borrowed it, I already gave it back, and it was broken when you
gave it to me."  Make up yer mind, Fred!





First, I try to address what I think you meant, for which I am rewarded
with a denial of sorts, and a smart remark.  Then, I point out that I am
not clear what you did mean, rather than risking your childish ire, wrongly
interpreting you a second time, and I'm stupid for it.  I just can't win,
can I, Fred?  You've got a great point here somewhere, it's just that
between stupid people that you must insult, and your jealous guarding of
your valuable opinions, you never actually get around to making it.


*** Fred issue #2;  Nick's alleged meaning ***

Too bad the plan only exists in your mind, instead of Nick's, or you
would have a really good point.  Instead you have provided a good reason
to ignore your insults, since they are based on incorrect interpretations
that you have made about others.  Forgive me for giving your insults more
meaning than they ever should have had.

My reading of what Nick actually said is that "people aren't required in
all parts of all space processes", so your taking issue with his opinions
regarding people in the space program, I read as "People are required in
all parts of all space processes."  So, help me out, here, Fred, since I'm
so patently stupid.  Did you read Nick wrong?  Or are you going to eat
your terminal now?  If the latter, I sure hope it's one of those Cheeto and
string models that all the computer mags have been raving about :-)

The point is, _I_ am not stupid because of _your_ incorrect assumption.  I'd
only be stupid if I insulted you for having made it.  But, alas, that's your
job, Fred.

And, finally, your style is confusing, since you tried to make two points,
simultaneously, with an allegory/insult.  Sadly, one point addressed a 'plan'
that only existed in your mind, and the other took issue with behaviors that
you do as much as anyone.


No, no, I finally got it.  You don't like the plan that Nick's posts made
you imagine.  And you don't like Nick's obnoxious behavior, even though
it's no worse than your own.  Thanks for taking the time with someone as
dense as myself.





Of course, Socrates.  How could it be otherwise?


Who cares who came on the net first?  If you do, consider that you saw
me come on after a brief haitus, before which I was on for about 2 years.
If you had seen me on the net first, you'd remember when Nick and I went
down exactly the same road regarding rude, unneccesary behavior.  It's
just amazing to me that you continue to take issue with behavior that's
no worse than your own.

Let's see here, my complaints about your obnoxious behavior are hypocritical,
while your flames against people you decide are flamers isn't, and my
complaints about your name-calling are immature, while your name-calling
isn't.  Yeah, right.  Maybe if you called me some more names, I might
see it better, Fred.

"Net.ghod wannabe"?  Naturally, Fred, you've correctly interpreted my
motivations, when yours are impossible to judge from your actions (as
your insulting of people that try, proves).  I didn't really care about
people that fill the net with personal garbage, what I really wanted was to
impress everyone.  I only put my complaints with your behavior on private
mail, not because it belongs there, but because I thought you were such a
jerk that you'd bring it back to the Net, playing right into my hands.
Alas, I had no idea what an intellectual master you were, turning tables and
bringing the history of these posts to the net, for the noble and valuable
purpose of embarassing me.  Whether I should feel stupid because I tried
to make suggestions to such a superior intellect, or becuase I tried to
communicate like an adult with a self-righteous ass, still isn't clear.

Well, Fred, you exposed me.  Now I'll never be able to get a(nother) job
with NASA, since they all know that I'm stupider than Fred McCall.  Well,
I just hope you're happy.  Please leave me alone, now.  I just don't
have the heart to attempt keeping up with one so far above me.  Maybe Nick
or Pat can approach your high standards, but I'm dropping it now.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.