"On the issue of lunar solar power it appears we agree this is a bogus justification.
(Mark 1, Lunies 0 by Larry's statements)"

Just because it impractical to make a solar power plant on the Moon to ship the power to Earth, this doesn't wipeout the idea of using the Moon to generate solar power from Space. You could make solar panel on the Moon and ship the panels to GEO. But before you start shipping power from Space to Earth, you need to lower the price of power generated in space to prices at least in the ballpark of Earth prices. In other words the price of power in Space for electrical power is around $100 per kw/h [or more], if you can drop the costs so the price is around $1 per kw/h [or less] then plans of lower this cost further might be within reason. The possibility of buying hundreds of tons of lunar water at $500 per lb and buying millions of kw hours at $50-100 per kwh is possible. In this "environment" it would be possible to lower the cost of Lunar water and power even further.

"On the issue of using lunar materials on Earth it appears we agree this is a bogus justification.
(Mark 2, Lunies 0 by Larry's statements)"

Currently you would pay around 10,000 per lb for rocket fuel at the Lunar surface, if instead you could buy rocket fuel for around $1000 per lb, then there are some lunar materials which could be sold to Earth. There would be a relatively small market for simple lunar dirt or "gem type rocks" for jewelry. There would a much larger market for PMG if these could be found in high concentration on the lunar surface as a result of heavy metal asteriod impacting the moon at relatively slow speeds [say a initial velocity around 4 km/sec or faster impactors which manage to hit the moon and not completely vaporize].

"On the issue of lunar industry you avoided the issue that none of these exist. I'm well aware you can use lunar materials for lunar industry. You can't however do what you can on Mars. The Moon has no atmospheric CO2 , nitrogen, or water because it has virtually no atmosphere. Mars also has far more frozen water. Mars has the resources to be independent of Earth. The Moon does not. The Moon has to have a high value trade with Earth to have a viable colony that can buy what it needs fromEarth. There is no evidence as yet it will ever have that. If a calamity on Earth halts lunar resupply a lunar colony would be doomed unless there were other viable colonies off of Earth. It's not really clear where you stand on my point here since you avoided it.
(Mark 2, Lunies 0, 1 point? by Larry's statements)"

The Moon does not have "atmospheric CO2 , nitrogen, or water", but the Moon could have minable CO2, nitrogen, and water. The Moon certainly has less water than Mars, but there easily could be billions of tons of minable water on the Moon and small colony could survive on less than a million tons of water. An event which kills more than 99% of the humans on Earth is extremely low, And the chance of having 60 million people on Mars without hundreds of thousands to millions of people in other places in space is nil. In other words in the next couple of centuries in most worse case example there will be more people living on Earth than on Mars and if there is a situation where we have a significant population in Space it's unlikely that a super majority will exclusively live on Mars. The argument that with Mars we will save the biological human is not a good argument.

"On the issue of CATS you say it's not the governments responsibility yet you seem to be supporting a government program based on the assumption it will happen. It doesn't make sense to be talking about colonizing the Moon when a prerequisite is nowhere on the horizon and you seem doubtful it will happen. Do you actually think lunar colonization is a justification or not?
(Mark 2, Lunies 0, 2 points? by Larry's statements)"

The purpose of the Moon would for commerical development, if there is commerial use of the Moon, then it will probably result in people living on the Moon. The purpose of living on the Moon may not be homesteading, it might be more similar to living on a oil platform- raising kids [whether they are goats or human childrens] may not be a activity done within this century on the Moon- homesteading would probably be done first on Mars.

"On the issue of optical lunar telescopes you seem to agree with me that these aren't practical. The radios telescope option was one I was willing to conceded, but wanted your input before doing so. Your folding telescope comment is somewhat irrelevant however because the most advanced space scopes invisoned are supposed to be interferometers.
(Mark 3, Lunies 0, 2 points? by Larry's statements)"

Large optical telescopes on the Moon would require that optical glass be made on the Moon. All the material for a radio telescope could be imported to the Moon from Earth. It's also possible that some or most of a lunar radio telescope could made on the Moon. Also one shouldn't think of there being just one telescope on the Moon, if one is made, it's likely that others will be made.