Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:17:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1120 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
>
> > Shareholders are often more concerned with filling their pockets than they are
> > with doing great things. If they weren't, they'd donate their money rather than
> > investing it.
>
> That's absolute nonsense.
>
> I could say more on this topic at this time but I'm not sure it's a good use of
> my time.
So due to your lack of inclination to post a proper rebuttal, we're suppose to
take the 'absolute nonsense' as the end of the arguement?
"Hey Joe--you're an idiot!"
"Wha--? Why???"
"I don't have time nor the inclination to tell you, you're an idiot--take my
word for it."
;)
Now I can imagine that there are probably a few reasons as to your lack of
expatiation--
a) you're extremely busy and just had to post a 'prelude' to your reasoning of
'absolute nonsense'--the 'upgraded version' of your logic will come forth to the
group in the near future where you will expand on your supposition.
b) you have the idea, justified or not, that expounding on your idea of
'absolute nonsense' would fall on ears of those who wouldn't either understand
or accept your justification of said nonsense--kinda like the adage regarding
pearls and sows.
Either way, I haven't quite made up my mind--I personally love the shuttle
program, and have gotten in many debates with people close to me who think
'space' is a colossal waste of money on any level, and any monies put towards
any 'outer exploration' would be better served taking care of the homeless and
the poor.
I point out that, sadly, there will probably always be homeless and poor, but
that shouldn't prevent humanity from pursuing the ingraned nature of curiosity
and learning.
I would appreciate a, shall we say, more thorough response regarding
shareholders and the exporation of space. I know that your libertarian views
affect, well, your views. I have as yet to meet shareholders who were
interested in something greater than the bottom line. On an individual basis,
to be said, the person can and is usually interested in some sort of
philanthropic endeavour, but shareholders of corporations are interested in
profit first and foremost. Now this isn't a law, it's just an observation.
That said, I would love to see more private enterprise where extra-planetary
travel is concerned. But, like everything else in my life, I believe that
balance is the key--some have said that "Oh with this successful mission the
doom of NASA and gov't space agencies is, and should be, doomed!" and others
have stated that "Oh NASA does a much better job--we should leave it to them!"
Who cares whose doing it? As long as it's getting done.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
