To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.geekOpen lugnet.off-topic.geek in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Geek / 4585
4584  |  4586
Subject: 
Re: We're here to go
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:17:56 GMT
Viewed: 
807 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dan Boger wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:28:44AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Um, no I don't. And stop resetting the FUT back to geek.

Why?  I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for
the parts where you are starting a debate.  Any reason we can't talk
about NASA here?

"lugnet.off-topic.geek (group):
      Geeking and geek toys (computing, games, peripherals, hacking,
      science, etc.): discussions of a generally (but not necessarily
      always) positive and serious or helpful nature."

You may not agree, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. Now, not every point of
disagreement is necessarily debate fodder... if you were to focus on the merits
of Hohman transfer orbits versus continuous boost, then sure, that'd be .geek.
But that's not the case here.

The question asked is framed in an economic context, not purely a technical one.
As soon as someone says "wouldn't X be monstrously expensive", that, in my view,
moves the topic right out of .geek and into .debate

On the other hand if all the participants agree with each other, then I suppose
technically it's not a debate.

I'm not seeing that yet though...  Oh!  ... Here's how you can help win your
argument that it's a .geek topic... merely post that you agree with everything I
said so far about the economics and politics of the situation, and then we're
one closer to that point. But something tells me you'll find something to
quibble about, won't you? :-)

Further discussion on whether the topic is suited to debate or geek probably
belongs in admin.general, as it's a charter question.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: We're here to go
 
(...) Why? I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for the parts where you are starting a debate. Any reason we can't talk about NASA here? (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

17 Messages in This Thread:




Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR