RE: Dejan's Rant
BRAVO, Dejan!! I to am a little sick of Reiff's arrogant attitude. He is
entitled to his opinion but let's all try and get along here a little.
Anyway keep up the good work and long live free speech! If you wish to be
critical of any people/policies/organizations then do so positively and
constructively with a good attitude. Here endeth the sermon.
I have tried unsubscribing twice to this mailing list (with no apparent
success) as I dislike the negative tone established by some. If the list
administrator is tuned in then please turn me off as I want to drop out!! I
will endeavor to find an alternate mailing list displaying a more positive
attitude, good luck I hear you all say!
From: Dejan Bajic [mailto:adastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Dejan's Rant
|We're waiting with baited breath (that's sarcasm lest you get
Hmmm, interesting, that's a new one for you (can you spell "ad hominem"
attack?) and obviously this is not just in this statement but the
overall tone of the entire message. Typical.
|It seems that revving up the Cold War again is big
|business. Let us hope that cooler heads prevail.
Though the actual meanings of some of these statements is unclear, if I
understand you correctly (really trying to logic this out). . . Wow! I
am truly shocked, instead of engaging in meaningless personal attacks,
insults, etc., etc., Mr. Reiff has actually addressed an actual issue
raised by the message (and associated article). A comment has actually
been made that makes some sense. . . now if only this could become a
more regular occurence? \
Seeing this policy as "revving up the Cold War again" (by, you guessed
it America, whoa sorry anything other then praise is construed as
"America bashing"; now about the critique's of the current
administration and it's policies and its detrimental influence on space
business, oh that's not America bashing huh)?
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty clear to me that Mr.
Reiff's definition of "on topic" for this discussion forum, is anything
which does not disagree with him at all. . . now certainly if he is a
"list-master" he can dictate what he likes, but somehow it seems to
smack of a just a bit of arbitrary opinions dictating the line of
Now, Mr. Reiff, what exactly was off topic about this message? Of
course this is a pointless question because we have seen that whatever
Mr. Reiff finds objectionable in some way is "off topic" but for the
sake of argument. . . Hmmm, let's see what the SpaceFuture site page
concerning sf-discuss says:
"sf-discuss is a mailing list for general discussion. . . [about] space
related topics." (quote can be found at
http://www.spacefuture.com/lists/sf-discuss/index.shtml entire quote as
follows: "sf-discuss is a mailing list for general discussion about the
Space Future site, other sites and sources of information, and space
So, again, my message was "off topic" because it discussed space? Maybe
because it discussed "space commerce" and U.S. military policy, goals,
etc., in space? Perhaps because this article talks about how the
military and associated groups, etc., might impact future "free
enterprise" companies in space? Oh yeah, maybe because I had a little
comedic critique of the nonsense of the "Star Wars" military space
goals, which someone did not agree with? Help me out here. . .
|The better solution is to have rapid deployment launch capability
|to replace on demand any critical space asset. While you're at it such
|capability will likely lead to inexpensive and reliable space access
|that not only enables lower cost space-based defense capability, but at
|the same time allows much more civilian space access - the true
|political deterrent to space warfare.
Unbelievable! [can *you* sense any sarcasm?] Two sensible statements
addressing the issue at hand. And someone will have to lock me up in an
asylum because I am actually finding this the point of my message in the
first place, to raise some issues, as Mr. Reiff has belatedly done, in
direct relation to space. I also must be committed because not only do
I find the above statements sensible, but I also agree with them!? I
know, what a concept, some civil and sensible discussion with one
particular individual in this discussion forum. Instead of wasting
money and time on non-existent threats to justify nonsensical projects
such as the "Star Wars" systems, which while wasting taxpayer money and
not in the interests of national security, also could very conceivably
impair the ****operation of *******space commerce******* (just a little
emphasis for those who have a tendency to read things out of context, if
they do at all) and most importantly *********civilian********** access
to space. Because if space is going to be dominated by the military
"sphere of influence" from the outset, I don't think that this is
exactly going to encourage companies to invest in space, not to mention
interest citizens in space in pursuits other then military.
Does anyone think that this has nothing with space, space business,
" The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the
world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is
one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the
dominant political mythology. "
Michael Parenti, political scientist and author
|> ||Space watchers even
|> ||worry that a maverick dictator might strap a crude
|> ||nuclear device to a rocket and explode it in space.
Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".