fisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108) (11/05/84)
I heard Sagan make an interesting comment about the lunar exploration
program. Namely that he was against starting the Apollo program, but he
was also against stopping it. In other words, he felt that unmanned
exploration would be more profitable, but having spent the money and
established the capability of going to the moon, we should have used that
capability to do more exploration.
I suspect he would feel similarly on the space station.
Incidently, the Planetary Society magazine has had a number articles, both
pro and con about the station. I don't believe that the Society as a whole
has taken a stand on it (though I could be wrong).
Burns
UUCP: ... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
ARPA: decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (11/09/84)
True, the Planetary Society magazine has had both pro and con views on
the space station. However, as anyone with any journalistic experience
will tell you, there is a strong editorial bias *against* the station.
Look at things like where the articles are placed, the order they come
in, the tone they take, and how effective they are at persuading you,
and the bias of the magazine becomes clear.
I suspect I won't be renewing my subscription, not so much because I
disagree with the positions the magazine takes as because of the way it
tries to influence its readers opinions. I'd rather have a magazine
that says "we feel this way, here's why" than a magazine that appears
to be presenting a balanced view when in fact it's trying to subtly
swing its readership in a particular direction.
--
-Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo)
...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl
73:78:79:14:y:y:4.2BSD:microcomputer,software,theatre,comedy,improvisation