Satellite in space destroyed....

[KrazyHorse]

I guess me memory allows me to recall your behavior in other threads.

Ah, so I suppose this is another of my silly conclusions. If you quote something that I say and add your own words to the same post, then you are not necessarily responding to what you quoted.

I guess that's just another example of me stupidly assuming you've said something by implication.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ah, so I suppose this is another of my silly conclusions. If you quote something that I say and add your own words to the same post, then you are not necessarily responding to what you quoted.

I guess that's just another example of me stupidly assuming you've said something by implication.

Actually, that is correct.

I do use other people's posts to start tangents, or to try to move the discussion away from an overly narrow point.

For example: this is a thread about China's testing of a anti-satellite missile. One of the issues it brings up is the notion of the militarization of space. That is also a point MOBIUS brought up, and then DanS came and said that discussion was irrelevant because China's missile was not in space, but launched from Earth. I replied that an anti-satellite missile is a space weapon. I did so because I believe that it is worthy of talking about the militarization of space at this point, and that China's test is part of the possible discussion.

If you and Kuci feel more conformtable with shallow dising contests, or arguing solely about narrow technical points as opposed to more policy type questions about what we should be doing in space, which frankly always interest me more, fine, go right ahead.

But again, if you want to argue against what I said, do it against what I said, not against what you assume I implied. And if you think I am being opaque or unclear (which is very possible), then either move on (always works), or ask for clarification.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, that is correct.

I do use other people's posts to start tangents, or to try to move the discussion away from an overly narrow point.

For example: this is a thread about China's testing of a anti-satellite missile. One of the issues it brings up is the notion of the militarization of space. That is also a point MOBIUS brought up, and then DanS came and said that discussion was irrelevant because China's missile was not in space, but launched from Earth. I replied that an anti-satellite missile is a space weapon. I did so because I believe that it is worthy of talking about the militarization of space at this point, and that China's test is part of the possible discussion.

If you and Kuci feel more conformtable with shallow dising contests, or arguing solely about narrow technical points as opposed to more policy type questions about what we should be doing in space, which frankly always interest me more, fine, go right ahead.

But again, if you want to argue against what I said, do it against what I said, not against what you assume I implied. And if you think I am being opaque or unclear (which is very possible), then either move on (always works), or ask for clarification.

Its difficult to have a discussion of policy or anything else where someone say "if that were so" under a quote, and then denies it was a reference to the quoted text, and employs other rhetorical techniques to make his case, and then, when called on it accuses those who call him on it of small mindedness. To expect such an approach to be persuasive is not wisdom.

[KrazyHorse]

I understand, GePap.

Whenever what you implied is demonstrated to be wrong, then you did not imply it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its difficult to have a discussion of policy or anything else where someone say "if that were so" under a quote, and then denies it was a reference to the quoted text, and employs other rhetorical techniques to make his case, and then, when called on it accuses those who call him on it of small mindedness. To expect such an approach to be persuasive is not wisdom.

What KH said again:

The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space,not the ability to launch weapons into space.

What MOBIUS was referencing was a BBC article. Did you read it? I assume KH did. And what is the BBC article about?

Here is the title:
Dominating the final frontier

Is it titled "weapons in space"? No. Interestingly enough, the article is about the same topic as the Weekly Standard article I posted.

Neither of them is a narrow piece focusing solely on the possibility of a new treaty to ban space weapons, though the BBC article does mention that the US does not want to sign on to one, why? Because it would go against current US policy about space. POlicy I quote for you and KH to see.

So what MOBIUS was referencing, As Far as I Can Know, is exactly what he quoted and then linked to, that BBC article. Again, it wasn't just about talks on weapons solely in space, but the entire US space strategy, which would go along with his statement about the "US doing that to themselves".

NOw maybe the problem was that DanS and the rest of you were too lazy to follow the link he provided, and instead focused only on the single sentence he quoted.

Silly me. I broke my own rule. I assumed that the rest of you would actually KNOW what MOBIUS did reference in full (a whole BBC article, and not a single sentence) and would talk about that.

That shows me, no? Next time assume people are lazy and that when someone like KH says : "The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space,not the ability to launch weapons into space", assume he in fact does NOT know what MOBIUS did actually referrence, which again, was a whole article about US space policy, not just a single sentence about the US not supporting a treaty to ban space weapons, which the US did not, BECAUSE of its space policy.

[Kuciwalker]

KH, I don't understand why you even bother anymore. GePap just bores me, except when he says things that are just absurd.

Granted, that's a lot of the time.

[GePap]

These last two pages are a perfect example of what can go wrong with the OT. Two pages of animosity based solely on the narrow point of "is there a treaty banning weapons going into space"... Come on.

DUH, no there isn't a treaty banning weapons going into space.

What is actually interesting is WHY is there no treaty, or perhaps SHOULD there be a treaty, or CAN there be a treaty.

Those are the points worth arguing, but they would bore Kuci, because they are not narrow technical point devoid of meaning, but actual discussions.

And lord knows, one does not come to poly to discuss....

[Kuciwalker]

What is actually interesting is WHY is there no treaty, or perhaps SHOULD there be a treaty, or CAN there be a treaty.

Interestingly enough, those weren't the questions that were asked. Quit whining.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Interestingly enough, those weren't the questions that were asked. Quit whining.

BY whom? You? Obviously you would not ask such things, because they seem not to interest you. Which is fine, but shockingly, there is more to poly than you Wesley. If a thread no longer interests you, move on.

Those questions are brough up by the very topic, and certainly by quoting that BBC article MOBIUS brought them up.

So again, if you don;t want to discuss them, go play in another thread. There are plenty.

Part of growing up.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
KH, I don't understand why you even bother anymore. GePap just bores me, except when he says things that are just absurd.

Granted, that's a lot of the time.

He's not that bad.

[Kuciwalker]

He practices proof by redefining the question. It gets really tiring after a while.

[KrazyHorse]

That's quite often the case. However, his attempts to distract attention from the fact that he's losing turn up something interesting as often as not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What KH said again:

The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space,not the ability to launch weapons into space.

What MOBIUS was referencing was a BBC article. Did you read it? I assume KH did. And what is the BBC article about?

Here is the title:
Dominating the final frontier

Is it titled "weapons in space"? No. Interestingly enough, the article is about the same topic as the Weekly Standard article I posted.

Neither of them is a narrow piece focusing solely on the possibility of a new treaty to ban space weapons, though the BBC article does mention that the US does not want to sign on to one, why? Because it would go against current US policy about space. POlicy I quote for you and KH to see.

So what MOBIUS was referencing, As Far as I Can Know, is exactly what he quoted and then linked to, that BBC article. Again, it wasn't just about talks on weapons solely in space, but the entire US space strategy, which would go along with his statement about the "US doing that to themselves".

NOw maybe the problem was that DanS and the rest of you were too lazy to follow the link he provided, and instead focused only on the single sentence he quoted.

Silly me. I broke my own rule. I assumed that the rest of you would actually KNOW what MOBIUS did reference in full (a whole BBC article, and not a single sentence) and would talk about that.

That shows me, no? Next time assume people are lazy and that when someone like KH says : "The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space,not the ability to launch weapons into space", assume he in fact does NOT know what MOBIUS did actually referrence, which again, was a whole article about US space policy, not just a single sentence about the US not supporting a treaty to ban space weapons, which the US did not, BECAUSE of its space policy.

when I quote a poster, I respond to the quoted text. If i want to respond to something else in the article that the poster linked to, i generally go to the link myself, and post the parts of the article that I want to respond to. If I just want someone to read the link, but dont want to respond to anything specific in the article, I quote the link. That just seems like good netiquette to me. It makes it more clear what Im referring to, which would seem to be the point of quoting. Im sure ive failed to live up to this from time to time, and when i do so I generally apologize.