Forgot a key trait

When the fallacy of their arguments and tactics are exposed they change topics. Demonstrated here yet again.

At least Barry can identify himself readily from a general description. Let's see if the other one can.

RE: "Gee Mark, I guess according what you say above, had you lived during the time of Copernicus, Galileo or Leeuwenhoeck you would have been one of those ready to condem these geniuses"

Those people were championed and eventually vindicated by people believing in and using the scientific method. Their doubters were not scientists but rather people like you who insisted on believing what they were comfortable believing rather than looking at the evidence. It is hilarious the number of times you have used similar bogus examples without having a clue how inappropriate it is.

RE: The true trait of an idiot is a person that follows a uninformed stubborn self-nominated commander in his ideas about transfer of Martian microbes without question when NASA's own planetary protection officer blasts him.

Hm. This issue was dealt with rather thouroughly, origionally, and in quite a bit of detail a few pages back to which your only reply was mindless parroting of something someone else said. I'll take that as a fine example of you expertise on the subject and your ability to think for yourself. I'm quite sure most here feal similarly as well with regard to your expertise on the basis of such self defeating evidence.

RE: "An idiot will accept anything he is told as dogma without considering other scientific evidence."

Quite true. It's really to bad you understand scientific standards of evidence so poorly that you have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain why what you think is consclusive evidence is not accepted by the scientific community.

RE: "An idiot will buy hook, line and sinker, ideas and numerous books about sending people to Mars to live in colonies even though NASA can't even fly the space shuttle without mishap."

Your ignorance of history, and science, and Zubrin's work is perhaps best demonstrated by these types of comments. History and technological development have often carried risk that was both known and unknown. No one is claiming manned spaceflight is without risk.

Zubrin embraces risk and bluntly states that NASA's risk tolerance is far below historic norms causing mission over design and cost inflation. It is a matter of public policy to decide what risk levels are tolerable, not for one author or even the head of NASA. Many within the Mars Society and others in favor of Mars exploration think Zubrin's risk tolerance is too high, but that does not mean his designs are not considered unrealistic. In fact they have caused NASA to do a major manned Mars mission redesign along the lines of his mission plan with modifications that they consider risk reducing at double the cost of Zubrin's plan but one tenth the cost of earlier plans.

RE: Marshab mantra

1) others know more about this than I, have responded in detail, and you have responded in the same unscientific way as described in the primary post. Go back and actually read that stuff Barry and the information in the articles provided. It is quite obvious you either haven't or are ignoring it so you can repeat your same ole same ole dogma.

2) You publicly rescinded your initial criticism of FMARS after attending the Buffalo MS convention. Strange how real data was discarded so quickly when it was inconvenient. This is quite consistent with you ignoring all the data Chris has provided.

Helpful hint Barry stick to a topic Barry and debate the technical details without personal attacks if you wish to gain the respect of people who understand science. Many technical people here including myself have taken a strong dislike of you in response to your tactics of diversion, evasion, and personal attack. Stick to the facts and I think you will find this board far friendlier even if we still disagree. I've had strong disagreements with Phil, Larry, Don, and Tom, yet bear no ill will for them because most of the time they try to stick to the facts or opinions at leats based on them.

Regards,
Mark