Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Again, read TFA before you use it to bolster your bluster

re: Again, read TFA before you use it to bolster your bluster
Yeti — (archived)

As with my reply in the sub-thread above, this will be my last reply to you in this sub-thread... for much the same reasons stated above.

"Its interesting to see you focus on my statement on Newcomb and trying to find evidence that he supported aviation research and not providing any evidence this Zubrin guy knows anything about his subject. "

If you actually go back and read what I had said, you'll see I offer no particular position on what Zubrin has said, or if he is right or wrong. What I have been talking about is what you have said. I am basically pointing out that you made a rediculous and inaccurate statement that is inconsistent with fact. You can accept the correction and actually learn something, or you can not. I really don't care.

"Also every author leaves themselves some wiggle room. I am sure a generation now Yeti Junior will be claiming that Zubrin wasn’t really against a hydrogen economy at all and point to some obscure statements in his article to prove his point."

Zubrin is no Newcomb, and I doubt he will be the subject of much historical discussion. And the point here is that its not the case I am using 'Obscure' statements of Newcomb- its that you can not produce what you referenced: the 'mathematical proof that flight was impossible weeks after the first flight'. In fact, I have shown you again and again that this idea is inconsistent with what newcomb wrote in several places. The burden of proof is on you, you are the one who made the claim. You either are intellectually honest and disciplined and are receptive to correction, or you are just blustering.

"Meanwhile, if you have no evidence to provide Zubrin right, then the debate is over. Go back to scaring your campers who come looking for you in their Hydrogen fueled SUVs."

Again, you are trying to 'slide off' the point. I make no claims concerning Zubrin. I have pointed out that your points in this larger thread don't stand up to basic reason and simple fact checking. I have pointed out that the badge of 'Expert' that you wear seems to be misplaced. I have also pointed out that if you were less consistent with bluster and more consistent with discourse, that you might get further in this audience than you have.

"You know, its no wonder space hasn't progressed in 40 years with folks that fight the future like you and the rest of you on this board do."

Ah. I see. My insisting that you be factually correct and actually debating the points that you raise means that I am 'fighting the future'. I suppose that to 'not fight the future' would be o nod my head in immediate agreement to whatever you have to say and deffer to you vaunted 'expertise'. Sorry. Science and solid reason does not work that way, and if there is anything that will unlock a brighter future for mankind in space and elsewhere, it is science and reason.

Despite talking very loudly, you say very little that holds up to scrutiny. I don't think the problem is with me and my 'fighting the future'.

Yeti

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (132 posts)