Methinks, thou dost protest too much. But seriously...
To say "...merely to point out who the guy is..." Not true. If so, you would not have chosen a subject line of "Consider the source".
And that would not have been followed by "...who the hell is he? What does he know about anything? Why should we listen to him? Oh, wait. Nobel prize for Physics 1979 THAT Steven Weinberg." I have to insist that whether you meant it or not...you post came off that way.
Perhaps you just choose your words poorly (not to be offensive, we all do it...it is no small task to get ones point across in such a forum...) or maybe we are just on a different frequency...but you original post sure seemed to IMPLY what I outlined in my reply.
As for my "think" suggestion, you are correct, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I do apologize. (The laziness comment was not very nice either...)
With all due respect, this is the most basic form of intellectual laziness.
If you think a person with a Nobel Prize - by default - can comment with unquestionable authority on any subject he/she so chooses...well, I refrain from personal attacks.
He is a very smart man. An excellent researcher. Probably knows shit loads about stuff outside of physics...But with that said, you cannot continue "ergo...he must be an expert on space policy and we CANNOT question or even consider that he may be wrong!"
I suspect a lot of Nobel winners would roll their eyes at your comments.
One suggestion. Think.
Re:Well, that pretty much buries it
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
Steve wrote an excellent article...aside from the inaccuracies, the lack of critical thinking, and biased approach, that is...
Did Bob Park help him write this?
Using science, engineering, and economics as a guise for politics and partisanship...well, quite frankly it sucks. (and yes...that goes for everyone...Bush, Park, Weinberg, me, you...)
I know...I'm wasting my breath and bandwidth...and I'm starting to ramble (mutter...mutter)
New /. Motto and a "borrowed" opinion...
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think we could eliminate most extraneous posts if we adopted a new/. motto...a quote by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynahan:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
As far as this topic is concerned, I think Keith Cowing of NASAWATCH & SpaceRef says it well in his "editor's note" about this op-ed piece.
(I would post it...but alas, it is copyrighted material - but you can still check it out on the main page of www.nasawatch.com )
Anyway, I love a high level of debate, but hope to have it with more accurate facts and critical thinking. I think most/.'ers would love to see us go to MARS...but it just burns our asses that it was taken to this level by the Bush Administration. I hear ya...but it just ain't intellectually honest to let political ideology and partisanship color the discussion. I know politics is a large part of "space exploration"...but we can't start an honest evaluation of things this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks, thou dost protest too much. But seriously...
To say "...merely to point out who the guy is..." Not true. If so, you would not have chosen a subject line of "Consider the source".
And that would not have been followed by "...who the hell is he? What does he know about anything? Why should we listen to him? Oh, wait. Nobel prize for Physics 1979 THAT Steven Weinberg." I have to insist that whether you meant it or not...you post came off that way.
Perhaps you just choose your words poorly (not to be offensive, we all do it...it is no small task to get ones point across in such a forum...) or maybe we are just on a different frequency...but you original post sure seemed to IMPLY what I outlined in my reply.
As for my "think" suggestion, you are correct, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I do apologize. (The laziness comment was not very nice either...)
With all due respect, this is the most basic form of intellectual laziness.
If you think a person with a Nobel Prize - by default - can comment with unquestionable authority on any subject he/she so chooses...well, I refrain from personal attacks.
He is a very smart man. An excellent researcher. Probably knows shit loads about stuff outside of physics...But with that said, you cannot continue "ergo...he must be an expert on space policy and we CANNOT question or even consider that he may be wrong!"
I suspect a lot of Nobel winners would roll their eyes at your comments.
One suggestion. Think.
Steve wrote an excellent article...aside from the inaccuracies, the lack of critical thinking, and biased approach, that is...
Did Bob Park help him write this?
Using science, engineering, and economics as a guise for politics and partisanship...well, quite frankly it sucks. (and yes...that goes for everyone...Bush, Park, Weinberg, me, you...)
I know...I'm wasting my breath and bandwidth...and I'm starting to ramble (mutter...mutter)
I think we could eliminate most extraneous posts if we adopted a new /. motto...a quote by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynahan:
/.'ers would love to see us go to MARS...but it just burns our asses that it was taken to this level by the Bush Administration. I hear ya...but it just ain't intellectually honest to let political ideology and partisanship color the discussion. I know politics is a large part of "space exploration"...but we can't start an honest evaluation of things this way.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
As far as this topic is concerned, I think Keith Cowing of NASAWATCH & SpaceRef says it well in his "editor's note" about this op-ed piece.
(I would post it...but alas, it is copyrighted material - but you can still check it out on the main page of www.nasawatch.com )
Anyway, I love a high level of debate, but hope to have it with more accurate facts and critical thinking. I think most
Just my thought.