kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun7.215211.22450@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: > Perhaps a couple years. Sooner or later the astronaut groupies have > to realize that pissing off scientists and calling their financiers > "bean counters" and making a cult out of centrally planned, pork barrel > space projects is not the best way to keep their beloved astronauts flying. The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean counters" makes me discount your arguments. I am neither a groupie or a name caller. Did you know name calling went out in elementry school. Sooner or later we will need to move man into space. I think it will take us a long time to learn how to do that. We need to continue learning, so that when the affordable launchs systesm arrive, man knows his limitations in space. -- Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
szabo@sequent.com (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut >groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean >counters" makes me discount your arguments. "Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters". _That_ is arrogance. There have been at least 3 examples of this perjorative in this newsgroup during the last year. I encountered it repeatedly as a member of NSS. Many do in fact discount scientist's opinions while claiming that their projects are for "science". That is hypocrisy. The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a real job. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com says: > >In article <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > >>The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut >>groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean >>counters" makes me discount your arguments. > >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I could probably say the same things about those who drool and wet their pants thinking about a robotic mission, but it probably wouldn't describe the majority of AI advocates. > >Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their >programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters". >_That_ is arrogance. There have been at least 3 examples of this Why is it arrogance? If you count beans, you're a bean counter. nothing wrong with being called a pencil pusher, a desk jockey, etc, etc. Now, if they call you a honeywagon you had best don your gloves, cause thems fighting words. >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. > hey, guess who woke up and found Fred still funded? > >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com >Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... >These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > >>The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut >>groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean >>counters" makes me discount your arguments. > >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Well, then maybe it's time you made a reality check. I've never been to Edwards to watch the shuttle land. If I were to go, it would be to watch the SHUTTLE land, and if they ever make a remotely-controlled shuttle landing, I might consider that interesting enough to compensate for the inconvenience and actually go watch it. I think far too much has been made of those who died on Challenger. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it, and were adequately compensated (they must have been; they boarded the flight of their own free will: nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to get on the ship or die) for the risks involved. Either that or they were just plain too stupid to understand what was going on, and I'm disinclined to believe that was the case. I've been to exactly one launch, and that was because the payload for which I work was being launched, and I'd just as soon have seen it launched on an unmanned vehicle. I think this sort of attitude qualifies me as not being an "astronaut groupie". HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO SEE A PERMANENT MANNED PRESENCE IN SPACE. The reasons for this are complex, and don't have anything to do with groupieism, and I resent it when you describe me, and others like me, as "astronaut groupies". >Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their >programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters". >_That_ is arrogance. There have been at least 3 examples of this >perjorative in this newsgroup during the last year. I encountered it >repeatedly as a member of NSS. Many do in fact discount scientist's >opinions while claiming that their projects are for "science". That is >hypocrisy. And a lot of the people who make the decisions ARE bean counters (actually, more likely, vote counters). Not all of them, but a sizeable number (or, given a lot of decisions that have been made, it sure as hell looks that way). Hell, it was the bean-counters that managed to turn a basically useful idea (a space station) into the boondoggle that Fred became. They decided that to please enough constituents, they had to try to make Fred all things to all people. The (very predictable) outcome was a plan for something that wouldn't do ANYBODY any good. >The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS >for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. Quit wasting your own tax money making self-serving posts to the net that end up being read by people on the government payroll! You've wasted more bandwidth than anybody else I've seen on this group. It you'd just remove your irrelevent diatribes and polemics from your posts, you'd cut down the network traffic on this group by at least 5%. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/17/91)
In article <91168.084950GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >>This is very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >>any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. >Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I could probably say the >same things about those who drool and wet their pants thinking about >a robotic mission, but it probably wouldn't describe the majority of >AI advocates. As an 'AI advocate' I strongly agree. I have been involved in research involving real time AI for several years. Most of it for embedded aerospace applications. It is because of this experience that I very much doubt we will see anything with anywhere near human capability for a very long time (if ever). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (06/17/91)
>In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Gosh Nick, what do you think of Memorial Day? Am I a "military groupie" because I go out to Andrews Air Force base, talk with the fighter pilots, and have respect for their accomplishments? >The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS >for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. I didn't know he was sacrificing his right to free speech just because he works for the government. He pays taxes too. We all do. Don't pull that "my tax money" horse-garbage (Posts from Canada and Australia excepted :-). Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting and someone tried to suggest an alternative such as <gasp> Manned Exploration and a resuable space vehicle, you'd want to defend your little baby too. Quit berating him for having a job. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
ddc@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Douglas Creel) (06/18/91)
> >The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS >for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. > > >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com You sound like a desperately lonely person, Nick. I suggest you seek some professional counseling for this hostility problem of yours. As far as someone's postings being a waste of your tax paying dollars, well, Nick, you're not the only one who pays taxes on this net. Maybe we should clarify exactly what it is you consider an "engineer-welfare" project. What about me? I work for the Mars Observer project which is decidedly unmanned and would seem to fall under the auspices of one of your pet projects. Is this welfare for engineers and space scientists? I can't recall of ever hearing of welfare recipients who work for their living. What about all the scientists who work for NASA, or NOAA, or the NSF, or NIMH, or any one of the national labs. Are we all just a bunch of self-serving welfare recipients, be that self-serving "astronaut-groupies" or self-serving "science-weenies"? Please enlighten me Nick, so that this veil of ignorance which seems to surround all of us who consider the men and women who died on Challenger heroes and not misguided martyrs can be lifted. Douglas D. Creel Mars Observer Navigation Team Jet Propulsion Laboratory
szabo@sequent.com (06/18/91)
In article <0094A42A.866932C0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >I go out to Andrews Air Force base, talk with the fighter pilots, >and have respect for their accomplishments? Good for you. Fighter pilots have a vital role in defense, and it takes only a tiny fraction of the defense budget to support them. The same cannot be said for astronauts. >He pays taxes too. From his paycheck which is 100% funded by the IRS, he pays perhaps 30% back to the IRS. BFD. I said his pro-astronaut posts were "self-serving" and they are; they serve to provide revenue for the paychecks of himself, his boss, and his co-workers at JSC. The same cannot be said for my postings. My employer sells computers to voluntary purchasers. I do not derive revenue from any of the subjects discussed. Of course he has a right to his self-serving propaganda; I also have a right to point it out for what it is. >Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting I don't propose to "pour" anything more than a tiny fraction of what the astronauts are wasting. Even that small fraction the astronaut groupies want to keep for their own programs, as the recent Freddy Krueger war so sadly confirms. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.222205.15504@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <0094A42A.866932C0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: [ referring to a post from a JSC employee ] >>He pays taxes too. >From his paycheck which is 100% funded by the IRS, he pays perhaps >30% back to the IRS. BFD. I said his pro-astronaut posts were >"self-serving" and they are; they serve to provide revenue for the >paychecks of himself, his boss, and his co-workers at JSC. The same cannot >be said for my postings. My employer sells computers to voluntary >purchasers. I do not derive revenue from any of the subjects discussed. >Of course he has a right to his self-serving propaganda; I also have >a right to point it out for what it is. You assume that he's supporting the manned space program because he works for NASA. Have you considered that the converse may be true? Perhaps he works for NASA because he believes in the manned space program. Whether he's right or not is a completely different issue, but I think it's unfair to denigrate all pro-NASA posts from NASA employees as "self-serving propaganda." Usenet is not (yet) a major focus of political power in this country. Most people who post to the net do not believe their posts will have a major effect on national policy. I believe that NASA employees who post their opinions are simply expressing their personal views and not attempting Machiavellian political maneuvers. While I think it would be senseless to accept their opinions as fact simply because "they're the experts", I think it's equally senseless to discard their opinions as propaganda simply because "they're paid by the IRS". Their arguments, like anyone else's, should be weighed on the merits of the views expressed, and not upon the identity of the poster's employer. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.222205.15504@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: > >>He pays taxes too. > >From his paycheck which is 100% funded by the IRS, he pays perhaps >30% back to the IRS. BFD. I said his pro-astronaut posts were >"self-serving" and they are; they serve to provide revenue for the >paychecks of himself, his boss, and his co-workers at JSC. Still doesn't mean he can kiss his right to free speech goodbye, does it? Of course, that little matter doesn't seem to count for a whole lot to you. Governmental employees still pay taxes, vote, and contribute to the net. >The same cannot be said for my postings. My employer sells computers to >voluntary purchasers. I do not derive revenue from any of the subjects >discussed. So this gives you the RIGHT to be the Czar of Correctness? >Of course he has a right to his self-serving propaganda; I also have >a right to point it out for what it is. Or let others judge for themselves rather than being a zealot about it? Your propaganda on asteroid mining is getting a little boring of late. >>Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting > >I don't propose to "pour" anything more than a tiny fraction of what the >astronauts are wasting. Even that small fraction the astronaut groupies >want to keep for their own programs, as the recent Freddy Krueger war >so sadly confirms. Oh GARBAGE, Nick. If the positions were reversed, you'd be the first one in line to defend your institution. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) (06/19/91)
In article <0094A4DB.07478DA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.222205.15504@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: 'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')' argument deleted. I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start? James Nicoll
rob@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Robbie) (06/19/91)
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >You assume that he's supporting the manned space program because he >works for NASA. Have you considered that the converse may be true? >Perhaps he works for NASA because he believes in the manned space >program. >Whether he's right or not is a completely different issue, but I think >it's unfair to denigrate all pro-NASA posts from NASA employees as >"self-serving propaganda." >Usenet is not (yet) a major focus of political power in this country. >Most people who post to the net do not believe their posts will have a >major effect on national policy. I believe that NASA employees who >post their opinions are simply expressing their personal views and not >attempting Machiavellian political maneuvers. >While I think it would be senseless to accept their opinions as fact >simply because "they're the experts", I think it's equally senseless >to discard their opinions as propaganda simply because "they're paid >by the IRS". Their arguments, like anyone else's, should be weighed >on the merits of the views expressed, and not upon the identity of the >poster's employer. >-- Oh, bless your heart, sir. At JPL we specialize in remote sensing instruments, but even so I have a deep gut level affinity for the astronaut program. (I also like Ray Bradbury, you see.) I will duck the rest of the discussion, primarily because my opinions are not yet carefully considered, and neither do they reflect anything that NASA thinks, but I will make one more small observation: While the IRS may pay us, in some sense, they are but an agency, or a bureaucratic means of government ends. I prefer to think of the heirarchy in terms of my boss, and his boss, and so forth. In short, I feel that as a NASA employee I don't work for the IRS--I work for Dan Quayle. Rob Fatland (My personal views only, not that of NASA, etc., ad infinitum)
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.170059.15059@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.222205.15504@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >> 'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')' >> argument deleted. >I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the >tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start? Wit Nick Szabo claiming that NASA employees should only post stuff that Nick thought was OK. That is, it was OK for the informational stuff to appear, but if one disagreed with Nick ..... I'm a lot calmer now that I don't read Nick's shit. (Not nicer, just calmer.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <rob.677270452@blacks> rob@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Robbie) writes: >I don't work for the IRS--I work for Dan Quayle. We could end an otherwise horrid thread with this classic. :-) -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.