Thanks for acknowledging, finally. I recognise it might not have been personal but it can come across as being ignored. My posts may not have mentioned you by name, and I understand your not wanting to pore through every post word for word; though I would have thought you'd want to follow a thread which you yourself began (well, hijacked, but let's not dwell on the past). However even a brief glance as others managed to do should have told you I was referring to points which you raised. Still, no real harm done.
I think you're confusing some of the points I was trying to raise, however unintentionally or otherwise. For instance, my use of the word Luddite had, clearly and unambiguously, nothing to do with dealing with the plight of the world's poorest people and everything to do with the attitude, as I perceived it, of wanting to end space exploration in order to redirect the funds in that way. That's sort of what the name Luddite means; a person who sees technology as a dehumanising threat and thus wishes to destroy it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances but it does seem to me that you may be intentionally misunderstanding my words, if not actively distorting their meaning in context. If so, please refrain from doing this. I for one do not take too kindly to such dishinest people and I know others are of similar opinion in that regard.
Next: when I brought up Hollywood's titanic budgets and asked how many people could be fed by such, I was simply trying to make the point that many millions of various currencies are spent on all sorts of things every day. I wasn't asking it of Hollywood; I was asking it of you. It seems rather ridiculous and quite hypocritical to object to funding for space exploration when it represents a tiny fraction of the amount spent in these other areas, yet make no mention of objection to any of such funding. As I pointed out, supported in diagrammatic form (bottom half of post #20), NASA's budget represents a mere fraction of the USA's annual spending and it's only been lessened over recent years. I simply asked why you weren't directing your quite legitimate protests towards the major offenders.
Finally, when I wrote about paying me no attention, I wasn't talking to you but responding to Homo Sapien's rather bleak view on humanity's future, to which I was rather curt and thus apologising for the attitude I took. I rather suspect you know this already, since you chose to quote only the part of my words that suited your purpose. Please do not do this again; it is deliberately misquoting and against forum guidelines, viz.:
Regardless, since you seem confused about what I wrote and the context of its meaning, I suggest you go back and re-read my words. I prophesy you won't do so, though.
I think you're confusing some of the points I was trying to raise, however unintentionally or otherwise. For instance, my use of the word Luddite had, clearly and unambiguously, nothing to do with dealing with the plight of the world's poorest people and everything to do with the attitude, as I perceived it, of wanting to end space exploration in order to redirect the funds in that way. That's sort of what the name Luddite means; a person who sees technology as a dehumanising threat and thus wishes to destroy it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances but it does seem to me that you may be intentionally misunderstanding my words, if not actively distorting their meaning in context. If so, please refrain from doing this. I for one do not take too kindly to such dishinest people and I know others are of similar opinion in that regard.
Next: when I brought up Hollywood's titanic budgets and asked how many people could be fed by such, I was simply trying to make the point that many millions of various currencies are spent on all sorts of things every day. I wasn't asking it of Hollywood; I was asking it of you. It seems rather ridiculous and quite hypocritical to object to funding for space exploration when it represents a tiny fraction of the amount spent in these other areas, yet make no mention of objection to any of such funding. As I pointed out, supported in diagrammatic form (bottom half of post #20), NASA's budget represents a mere fraction of the USA's annual spending and it's only been lessened over recent years. I simply asked why you weren't directing your quite legitimate protests towards the major offenders.
Finally, when I wrote about paying me no attention, I wasn't talking to you but responding to Homo Sapien's rather bleak view on humanity's future, to which I was rather curt and thus apologising for the attitude I took. I rather suspect you know this already, since you chose to quote only the part of my words that suited your purpose. Please do not do this again; it is deliberately misquoting and against forum guidelines, viz.:
Quote:3. Quoting Others Accurately.
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but do not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule will result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned or banned. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (ie. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the bolding and/or italics are yours and not the quoted member's and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text.
Regardless, since you seem confused about what I wrote and the context of its meaning, I suggest you go back and re-read my words. I prophesy you won't do so, though.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
