[split] Neil Armstrong Dead

[Phish]

Who em I? I'm an naive 15 years old chap from EU,who are you?

Goth by any chance, or just a typically pissed-off 15 year old?.

i wouldn't say typical,because typical teens gets pissed when they get killed in call of duty, I get pissed for a better reason.

[Lion IRC]

Thanks for acknowledging, finally. I recognise it might not have been personal but it can come across as being ignored.

Yes but you havent been ignored and I explained as much. So why waste time speculating? It was barely 24 hours of attention deprivation.
Dont piously thank me for "finally" acknowledging you when you didnt include my nick in your posts!!!

...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).

I DID pore through your posts. I thought thats what you wanted!
And I did NOT start this thread. Get your facts correct.
Besides, its pretty rich to plead for responses then when you get them, to accuse me of hijacking something. Do you wanna be in the thread or not?

...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.

No. Exactly! Theres no harm done. I say stuff. You say stuff. I read your (unaddressed) posts and I didnt see any need to respond. You asked me to. I did. You have no basis to whine at me.

...I think you're confusing some of the points I was trying to raise, however unintentionally or otherwise.

So what? People are allowed to be confused by what you write.
You have no basis to whine at me.

...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.

You said Luddite. See post #4. You said your posts were directed at me. You said "Notwithstanding this Luddite attitude to the acqusition of human knowledge, consider this. Where do you suppose all this money that funds space exploration is spent? I'll give you a clue: you live on it. If you're as concerned as you wish to appear about the very real plight of the poorest people in the world"

Your post would be irrelevant without the bit which comes after "CONSIDER THIS"

clearly and unambiguously, nothing to do with dealing with the plight of the world's poorest people

... That's sort of what the name Luddite means; a person who sees technology as a dehumanising threat and thus wishes to destroy it.

We didnt derail to talk about the definition of the word Luddite. Did we?
Dont forget your posts about “ the terrible plight of these poor people… the poorest people in the world… all the innocent and hurting people’’

... 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.

Yawn. If you think I'm doing something just report it OK.

I’m not sure, I may be mistaken, but I think you said “this” which, if you did, would be a mistaken interpretation of something I probably didn’t make clear enough in the first place but that’s not my fault therefore it’s entirely possible you might be taking me out of context and if you are doing that it might even be deliberate and if its deliberate then its quote-mining and if its quote-mining you’re a bad person blah blah blah

You dont get to reinterpret your OWN words as possibly meaning something other than what they actually say just so you can accuse me of misreprenting you. I have not asserted any alternative meaning to them or used them to misrepresent what you think. You're the one who brought Hollywood into the discussion not me. (How many bellies do you reckon could be filled with Hollywood budgets?) Where's the answer to my question? Why can’t Hollywood use your trickle down economic argument too? If NASA can so can Hollywood.

... 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.

Yep I agree. Thats a very simple point indeed! (And you wonder why I didnt go out of my way to reply to that statement of the bleeding obvious.)

... I wasn't asking it of Hollywood; I was asking it of you.

a) You didnt say hey Lion take a stab at guessing what Hollywood spends each year.
b) I wouldnt have a clue. Start a thread and we can discuss it if you like.

... 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.

See, watch this.
Here's how you calmly re-direct when someone misrepresents you with strawman stuff - no whining, no complaints, no insinuations.

Stimbo - ''ridiculous and quite hypocritical to object to funding for space exploration"

Lion IRC - I dont object to space funding. I object to starvation. Let the little kids watch the moon landing on TV with food in their stomachs. Spend a hundred trillion dollars on Space Stations and missions to Mars if you like. But dont dare ask why does God allow suffering when we have the money to prevent it.


Stimbo - ''I simply asked why you weren't directing your quite legitimate protests towards the major offenders.''

Lion IRC - I do.

See? Strawman all gone now.

...Finally, when I wrote about paying me no attention, I wasn't talking to you but responding to Homo Sapien's...

Thanks for letting me know. I wish you had told me that before I responded to it. Can you see my problem now? That post (#27) doesnt even mention Homo Sapiens. It is unaddressed, just like the other unaddressed posts which I am supposed to know are for me and that you wonder whether I am ignoring.

...I rather suspect you know this already...

Already know what? See there's the problem.

You are sitting there in your own paranoid suspicion speculating about why you are being ignored when you arent actually even being ignored.

You are imagining an alternate interpretation of your own words and then projecting that onto me assuming that is also MY misinterpretation.

I dont know what you think I might already know because I havent read the script of this play yet. Can you send me a copy so I can start getting my lines right?

...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.

...and we're back at the beginning again where we started.
*sigh*

[downbeatplumb]

Charity is a a false solution to any problem.

To really allocate money to have actual effect you need government intervention.

I am against charity myself for just this reason, it removes the urgency for government action and so nothing lasting is achieved.

There are also so many charities trying to do the same thing it is a wasteful and inefficient use of money.

During the Victorian era you had many benefactors giving generously for specific causes, all very laudable, but no matter how generous and wealthy a person or group of people is they cannot match the power of a properly directed government initiative.

Until the government stepped in legislatively or financially nothing ever changed.

[EscapingDelusion]

These are the words that Christians believe Jesus said:
"'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'" (Luke 12:15)
"'But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.'" (Luke 6:24)
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'" (Matthew 25:34-40)
"'One thing you lack' [...] 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" (Mark 10:21)
"'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.'" (Matthew 19:23)
"'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.'" (Matthew 6:19-21)
"'In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.'" (Luke 14:33)

Here is how his most well-known followers live: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-eva...tyles.html

[Cyberman]

I'm glad to see others taking up the cudgels. I'd hate the thought of Lion having the last word on this after my post was deleted (by request, so no conspiracy theories please). Clearly I had nothing of value to offer here that our friend thought worthy of intelligent and courteous response, such as that which I quite genuinely extended to him only to have it thrown back in my face. All I had was carefully considered opinion backed up by facts in diagrammatic form. Still, such is the nature of conversing with a hostile interlocutor, I suppose.

Have at it, lads and lasses. Fill yer boots.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have at it, lads and lasses. Fill yer boots.

I was considering it, but when I went to take a look, it became apparent that somebody had already dropped a giant nasty turd in them.