Re: Poverty a subject

Posted by
Kelly on Jan 31, 2004 at 00:45

Re: Poverty a subject (Pasti)

"You know what they say, you walk like a duck...And from your postings, definitely you quack like a duck..."

Actually you'd jumped to that conclusion from a single posting but so be it. At first you insisted you weren't being insulting but now you've changed your mind and decided to be even more insulting. Cool! I've wounded your pride and you're getting mad. That's an important first step, Pasti. You'll get steadily angrier, and thereby more entertaining.

"You mentioned the most familiar sources to you,so chances are with a rather good probability that you use them the most.Sure, you might use other sources, but much less frequently, since you did not bother to mention them at the first shot."

Ha! You are so much fun, Pasti! I'm amazed you didn't strain something with those circumlocutions. Just because I mentioned that I like to read the science sites you think that means there's a "high probability" that I use them the most? Really? I understand that you think that statement supports your argument but to toss out such random speculation so authoritatively as though you'd done a study of the probabilities and had..well...anything to back it up. You should be proud!

"But then physchology is a wasted science on you, isn't it?"

Seriously, a little proof reading first, Pasti. It distracts from your ravings.

"but I am glad that you were so enlightened to spot the hoax at once."

Ah, cold fusion. No, I didn't spot the hoax (it was actually more wishful thinking than a hoax, but I didn't spot that either), nor did I claim to. What I did was what you are supposed to do: I reserved judgement. I didn't jump to conclusions or make wild assumptions based on virtually no evidence. (I believe that's refered to as "pulling a Pasti").

"You know, silence is of gold..."

Indeed, my noisy friend, indeed.

"It so happens that I know Amaranth much better than you..."

You do? Congratulations! You can give her eulogy when she finally carries out her endless threats to kill herself. Assuming she's not just doing it for the attention.

"I am a physicist,whether you like it or not," Pasti said defensively.

"You are the one who asked about my credentials;better read your post again."

Ok. Here's what I said in my post: "Please tell me more about your involvement in nanotechnology research. In what capacity? Have you published any papers?"

I just asked what you had done in the field, not what degree you had. I was looking for links to papers so I could see what area you'd actually contributed to.

"when you talked about the Nanotech, you used only the popular shell view, and no details characteristic to someone who actually works(ed) in the field"

Actually I didn't say anything about what will or will not happen in nanotechnology. I just said that the attitude of government and industry has gone through an amazing transformation in the last 20 years, from dismissing the idea that nanotechnology was even remotely possible to doing a complete 180 and being eager to invest in it. I made no statement of any kind about the technical details.

"Whether you like it or not is rather irrelevant."

Sorry, Pasti. I know you really want me not to like it but I'm fine with it.

"I don't particularly care what you are, as long as you are capable of articulate thinking.And you might be, but you haven't showed it yet."

I believe you meant to say, "but you haven't shown it yet."

"For who, mind you?Scientists did take him seriously, but the funding was lacking for the reasons above."

Yes, scientists took Feynmen seriously and I believe you when you say that such research could have taken place much sooner. What they didn't take seriously was Drexler's statements that actual *applications* were possible in the near term. It was Drexler's writings that inspired research into applications and the results of that research was promising enough that investors and politicians got interested. They weren't interested earlier because they're never very interested in basic research for it's own sake. But the possibility of actual applications / products definitely got them going.

"The difference between our views is that you seem to be content with how much science evolved in the last 30 years."

Another assumption. I've never said I'm content. What I am is hopeful that amazing things in many fields are just around the corner. I'm sure if funding had been allocated differently and if politicians had been smarter things would happen faster. If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets. So what? Rather than worry about what might have been, I remain fascinated by what is happening now.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]