re: Right...
I originally wrote:
I would expect you (geoff) and Ken to attack Beattie on a personal bases. Of course he misstates Paul Spudis' views how else could he come to such idiotic conclusions...8-)
Ken wrote is response:
"Did I call him..."
Incapable of reasoning his way out of a paper bag? ... A Zubrinista flunkie?
And I say bingo! You want some citaions how about the title of your bloggish piece:
"Some thoughts on "Just how full of...""
Run out of space Ken? Not suggesting Beattie is full of something are you?
Ken goes on to say:
I printed it out and read it. Then I read it again, trying to figure out just what point exactly Mr. Beattie was trying to make. The rhetorical structure was very difficult, and it wasn't until I took out a pen and started trying to underline his important points that it became clear.
then
My sense of this weakness in the article was fueled by a strong undercurrent of Mars Society bullet points in much of his argumentation. The very awkward start seems to have to pirouette to get into the position that the author wants. He makes authoritative statements without qualifications, which I always find tough to swallow when they're not backed up with some good fiber supporting what's asserted.
You don't seem to have similar problems with Spudis and others...
But, as I was throwing Geoff in with you and his response was much stronger in the idiot department and you just use gloves and never really call Beattie incapable of actually reasoning...so if it helps you live in this internet world I'm sorry to have offended you. It must be your use of nonsense about non existant Mars Society anti-Moon bullet points, underhanded calling it bull shit and not understanding Beattie's article and all that got me confused.