Why Are Only Wealthy Industrialists Visitors To The Space Station???

Regardless, the label 'witless' is still valid. Gender means nothing in a debate, yet you chose to bring it in - why? Instead of dealing with tangents just try to focus on the original thought which has clearly been shown to be worthless. So, better yet, find some other cause to champion since you've obviously ridden this dead horse as far as it could possibly go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You only think I am obnoxious because your ego takes a dent when you are shown to be wrong. That doesn't make me obnoxious, it just means you have a flawed personality that cannot stand criticism. Learn to deal with that.

I'm not pedantic, I'm factual. Being pedantic would be correcting something like 'Denis Titto' to 'Dennis Tito', and calling the person who made the error. Being accurate is pointing out that counter to the statements made by many and various people, the people that have bought tickets into space are graduates, scientists, and philanthropists, and backing up my statements.

I've deconstructed it all over these pages. It's not in my mind, and other people are in agreement with my position. Justify yours, with facts, and quit whining.

Oh please, you used an 'appeal to authority' fallacy and stated you had 'several degrees'. THAT is blowing your own trumpet!

No it isn't. It was aimed solely at you. You are squirming now, and it's pathetic. Don't try and draw this debate, and play for sympathy, because you stand or fall on your words, not your gender.

Let's get this back on topic. Your next post should contain some references to back up the claims you have made.

To summarise, you have claimed that NASA intended to take civilians to the ISS, and that these people will provide some perspective not afforded by the people that do go by whatever means. You need to substatiate why NASA should take civilians at the taxpayers expense. Also please stop using Christa McCauliffe as an example, she trained for a year, so she became an astronaut, she wasn't fresh off the street.

Work on that, get some facts together, and get the chip off your shoulder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No asshole, I don't mind criticism and no personality flaw. I do find your characterization an affront personally and to women generally. Observing your other posts, you have a penchant for engaging in personal attacks and the use of obscene language.

Frankly, I don't care if you agree with me or not as we have a different take on the role of NASA, government and human nature. I was tangentially involved in the choice of sending a teacher into space as opposed to another profession and I don't give a damn what you think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YOU have called me 'asshole' twice in this thread, so you are far from having the moral high ground. I rarely use bad language, you will find an insignificant number of instances amongst over 3,000 posts, but then you never let facts get in the way of a good rant, do you? I didn't know, not care you were a woman until you raised the point. The whole point was I don't care about your gender, and I haven't insulted all women. You are looking for offense because you have failed to prove your points. You continue to fail with the content and language of your latest post.

Yeah, we have a different take. NASA has a different take from you, and doesn't do what you want them to. Boohoo for you.

Oh really. More self aggrandisement. You must only feel tangentially guilty for her death then, which is why you are so keen to sacrifice some more civilians in an outdated and unsafe launch vehicle.

 

At the time there was a consensus that this type of operation was doable and yes, I have felt guilt but not for the reasons which you enumerated.

 

What, taking someone with a master's degree and training them to be an astronaut over the course of a whole year? Of course it was doable. That approach was still rather selective, don't you think? Or is picking from graduates 'open' enough for you, because that was one of your rants.

I'm not convinced you were at all involved, with your scant grasp of NASA policy, it all sounds like more fallacious 'appeal to authority' attempts to me.

 

You don't have to be smart to be rich. Individuals with below-average IQ test scores were just as wealthy as brainiacs, finds a national survey.

"What the results really say is it doesn't matter whether you are born smart or you are not born smart, you can do financially okay," said the study's author Jay Zagorsky, an economist at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research.

"It's not 'I'm not particularly intelligent, I'm destined to a life of financial failure and hardship.' The results said [if you have] a positive attitude and [want] to save up money and build up your wealth, you can do it no matter what your IQ is," Zagorsky told LiveScience.

The study, detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Intelligence, also showed that highly intelligent people have financial difficulties, maxing out credit cards and missing bill payments. Zagorsky suggests that the financial troubles could be linked with an inability to save money.

HERE'S YOUR NEW ASTRONAUT CORP. ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

 

Monandrock, please see comments in the other thread you started about the space lottery, where you also posted this.

Instead of backing up your support for the lottery after the odds have been questioned in that thread, and instead of backing up the claims you have made in this thread, you go off on a tangent.

Stick to the thread, back up your assertions, or admit defeat. Please stop trying to draw the debate.