nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (10/26/84)
*** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR LINE *** Can we start discussions that will serve a purpose here. Or is the net. just an extension of the bathroom walls in the local bars. We can do without names like fuzzy headed liberals, and quotes from BOZO the clown (unless you were referring to the one in the white house -:). An aside to Milo: Awhile back you stood up and said (paraphrased) 'hogwash, I want to see some FACTS, HARD COLD FACTS'. Well I not sure about your site but mine received several articles containing these facts. From you, there was silence. Then, days lat r, you come out and demend that these facts (to meet your criterium for facts) must come from a selective source of your choosing. Now forgive me if you are a bible-toting born-againner but, thats like asking someone to uphold the theory of evolution, using the Bible as their only reference. Yes there are usually several expert opoins that disagree with each other. So instead of disallowing them with an unbased fiat, try pointing out there flaws and mis-assumptions. Thanks for the time, Bruce Golub PS. Please excuse the spelling erors, it is past my bedtime.
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (10/29/84)
I was preoccupied with work for a few days. So I didnt have a chance to respond for each letter. But a summary response was sent out. About selective sources, I dont accept data from non-scientists. You can rave all you want, and if you are famous, it can get into print, but that doesnt make it true. The fact of the matter is with regarding Nuclear weapons policy, I want data from the people who have access to the real data, not hearsay. Contrary to popular opinion, the strategists are not unified on many issues, and there are many dissenters, some respected, some not so respected, but all who try to base their views on real data. But all will of those will certainly agree with me on the casulty figures, given a few percent under the circumstances I named. Thats because its based to real data. I doubt the editors of Mother Jones would know a warhead design from the plans for a bulldozer if they saw one. You can argue the significance of the numbers, but the numbers are valid. Noone on the inside buys this 'blow up the world x times over' crap. Milo