"You say Bush has no intentions of using space for hostile purposes and never telegraphs that he might."
You have no right to ascribe what I "say" when I've never said that -- that's the sign of an intellectual cheater.
What I say was absolutely clear -- you provided a citation in support of your argument that I asserted was false. I provided a link to the original document for you to check to see if my assertion was correct.
As best as we can tell from your responses, you have not bothered to even check -- or you have, and found you are wrong, and refuse to admit it.
This isn't a matter of 'disagreeing' -- this is a matter of intellectual dishonesty. You're right -- it's useless to continue this exchange.
And it is the typical response I get from certain circles when challenged on the factual accuracy of their feel-good fantasies.
Space/Science » in reply to Cross-purposes.
Dark purposes.
The whole thread (29 posts)
- China being stupid in space.
- Maybe not...
- You have to assume that they could do this without "proving it" stupid test.
- We tested one method of destroying satellites. Do you object to our test on the same grounds?
- Assumption in this case might be invalid
- You have to assume that they could do this without "proving it" stupid test.
- Already discussed below - this thread...
- US and its allies have of losing dominance (n/t)
- Are they insured?
- Maybe not...
