From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:56:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:29:00 -0500
Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered -


>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:08:59 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:23:55 -0600
>>Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered

>>>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:51:31 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>>>Subject: Re: First Quasi-Satellite Of Venus Discovered

>Mr.Lehmberg,

>I find it difficult to deal with your prose. Perhaps it
>is some failing in me. The thing is, it seems that whenever
>I make a remark it seems to offend you or insult you!
>(And I am sure that remark just did! And also that one!)

I find your prose mawkishly insinuating, confiningly judgmental,
and inappropriately sarcastic. I don't consider my kind
assessment a failing at all. Moreover, you made at least one
comment last response that was _almost_ inoffensive. <g> I had
begun to entertain some hope for you. I trust this was
understandable enough?

>I am used to communicating to engineers/scientists. I have never
>come across someone like you before who seems to be very sincere
>but who takes offense at many statements I make!

Yes - there are many different kinds of people on the planet -
 persons with all manner of constructive sensibility, folks who
are offended by officiousness and by persons protesting too
loudly when they're expected to take what they're dishing out...

Hey - you're a wet blanket... get used to it or dry out.

>I feel like the
>kid in the classroom who doesn't raise his hand anymore because
>of being snapped at by the teacher.

Funny - if we can ride the classroom metaphor a little more, I
would have said you're doing a great impersonation of a kid
standing on his desk throwing a tantrum because a fellow student
doesn't mind parsing his paradigm for him. I suspect the real
headmaster's going to stick his head in here momentarily. LOL!

>If I wanted to be rude, believe me I can, but I don't think that
>accomplishes anything! It shows poor thinking and lack of
>argument.

Wow - please be rude! I want to see if I can detect a difference!

>>Perhaps I over-reacted to your veiled characterization of me as
>>an automated dispenser of (inane?)obscurities, a man who can't
>>stand and deliver, and an opium user?

>Regarding "automated dispenser of obscurities" (Inane? don't put
>words in MY mouth!), you mentioned something (about prolonged
>life which I inferred meant downloading consciousness into
>computers. In that sense you _would_ be automated, but alive!
>That you would behave in the same manner as in corporeal life
>and provide complicated prose (obscurities if you will), I think
>is a safe assumption.

>That I was wrong in your desired method for prolonged life
>showed a lack of imagination and comprehensiveness on my part.
>Your concept of prolonging life using stem cells and such would
>SEEM possible within 50 years however I must point out to the
>dreamer that if this _was_ made possible, it is highly unlikely
>that our civilization of only 50 years development is going to
>allow it to be used on any except the elite and rich.

Remember you said that, sir. I suspect it's going to come up
again...

>The reason
>is clear, there are too many people right now and too many old
>people who can no longer be productive.

How Malthusian of you.

>Increasing the life span
>of everyone will destroy our planet because of limited resources
>(people are not going to give up their right to have lots of
>babies). So it is clear that you or I will not get the nice
>drugs to live forever, only the guys at the top (unfortunately,
>in our world, the cream doesn't rise to the top, mainly the
>dregs). So we will end up with a world being controlled by
>people like the Supreme Court only more youthful, never
>retiring, making the world in their image, while we more
>ephemeral people come and go.

The irony is that you were accusing _me_ of verbosity. But
seriously, I'm more amused at how far afield you can attempt to
wander on this given it was you, at the start, who intimated in
your thinly veiled criticism of me, and I paraphrase, that I was
a drug addicted dreamer with a relevancy problem. <g>

>Did I say you _were_ an opium user? No, I meant that dreamers in
>the past had opium dens to live in opium dream worlds! If you
>are offended, better to simply ask for clarification in a
>courteous manner rather than blaze an inferno at me!

Better to be a little more clear at the start and preclude the
"blazed inferno" in the first place, I should think.

>>you must be aware that human beings
>>can do (and have done) anything they put their minds and hearts
>>to.

>No. You are wrong.

No Sir. It's you living an irrationality... here's how:

>There is no world peace.

You think a rabid corporate military industrial complex is
_remotely_ interested in facilitating world peace? We don't
_want_ world peace.

>There is no fusion reactor.

You think petro-chemical corporations are remotely interested in
providing us cheaper power? We don't _want_ fusion... hot, cold,
or cosmic.

> There is no cancer vaccine.

...But there is a medical system and pharmaceutical mega corps
who treat Cancer like a cash cow, along with Diabetes, heart
disease and a plethora of others. You think these companies are
_remotely_ interested in removing their hands from the teats of
that cow? We don't _want_ a cure of most diseases. We'd rather
'manage' them for a profit.

>There is no population
>control (not War/Famine, but abstinence,etc).

...But there is an un-elected class who has discovered that the
more human beings you have on habd the less you have to pay any
one of them a simple respect. You think this class is _remotely_
interested in controlling the size of our population. We, the
aggregate and manipilated we... don't _want_ population control.

Who's it _really_ living in a fantasy land, Mr. Smith.

>>Your manner in response (actually a lack of same)
>>to my expressions regarding stepping stone asteroids has
>>provided abundant cause for me to be offended.

>Actually, "stepping stone asteroids" _is_ witty.

I'm a paragon of easy mirth and grace, too, Mr. Smith.

>>...Offended by the
>>assumptions you seem to make. Offended by your inappropriately
>>pedantic manner. Offended by your reflex disrespect. Offended by
>>your inability to step outside the box in a forum that typifies
>>it... I could go on...

>One man's "pedantic manner" is another man's straightforward
>prose.

Your straightforwardness carries a barb you'd have break of in
the conversational wound, Sir, and I point out that you moan the
loudest (and the longest) when these barbs are returned to you
with a little english.

>Disrespect? I can be disrespectful if you want some
>examples, but I have found it to be counter-productive.

Oh please do! In as much as we have already achieved the
counter-productiveness, I'd like to see how far you're will to
go to press your point... which has by now wandered way off
topic.

>I can
>step outside the box better than most, but what you seem to
>really want is just a bunch of grinning yes-men to nod and
>wisely not comment (no comment is acceptance).

Pity... I've found them remarkably hard to find at the UpDates
forum... or maybe you're making some _more_ accusations of what
you might, yourself, be guilty.

>All I do is point
>out technical considerations and practical realities, but you
>can't stand that!

I can stand that with alacrity, Sir. It's _you_ seems to be the
person most upset by criticism. You're a wet blanket; get over
it. As you've already admitted by virtue of your warm and fuzzy
worldview example above... it's _you_ living in the dream world.

>As I said before, we can dream about
>impossible things to no avail. But when you want to make them
>possible, you have to consider the practicalities!

That's not the bone of contention here, Sir. But you _do_
demonstrate a propensity to wander vast fields of self generated
explication in an ongoing quest to whistle past your graveyard.
The cracks between your meager senses are wide, Mr. Smith.

>>I'd suggest you seem to take offense when your readership won't
>>reflexively genuflect at your portentous arrogance, inflated
>>hubris, and sneering manner.

>Incredible! I don't expect genuflection!

You likely have a different word for it?

>How can you ever even
>reach these conclusions is amazing! Arrogance! Hubris! Sneering!
>Most ridiculous!

Only perhaps, Mr. Smith.

>My comments can be taken or left where they
>are. If you don't like them, simply ignore them Mr. Lehmberg!

...Can't... it's my job <g>

>Maybe I should simply do the same with you.

You can quit any time you want to.

>>I don't even want the choir. I demand respect, is all.

>But please tell me exactly how to show you respect.

I've been pretty clear, Sir.

>I could
>address you as Mr. Lehmberg. I can avoid calling you names. I
>can avoid criticizing your prose style.

I suspect you refuse to get it at all. You're a wet blanket...
deal with it.

>>Moreover, a sneer _is_ an aggression, Sir.

>Well, I want you to know that in composing my responses I do not
>sneer.

You might have a different word for it.

>I simply use critical thought and as little emotionalism
>as possible.

With a measure of pedantic sarcasm, a pinch of intellectual
abusiveness, and a dollop of arrogant pride. Or please otherwise
explain the length, breadth, and girth of your ongoing riposte
in this thread.

>I am not banging the keyboard with my Pepsi or
>cursing or foaming at the mouth! As for textual sneering, this
>is more complicated and is apparently in the eye of the reader.
>If I am being aggressive in this way, I cannot filter it because
>it is not apparent.

Well, I guess we'll just have to "keep on keeping on," in the
vernacular.

>>Nonsense. I suspect that this was not your intention, Mr. Smith.
>>Your manner is an impedance, Sir, and not an incentive.
>
>You don't know how engineering works apparently.

My father was an engineer. He worked for a time around Stanton
Friedman on Nuclear propulsion at AeroJet General (another thing
we could have if we wanted it), I think it likely I understand
engineers and engineering a little better than you'd think.

>To solve
>engineering problems you _have_ to go out of the box but reality
>and practicality of funding/resources and time are needed to
>determine optimal solutions.

Oh come on, Mr. Smith. How far afield do you feel you have to
wander to prove a point that has not in any way being contested.
I said you're a wet blanket and I stand by it.

>Thus, my manner is a critical part
>of the problem solving process. And for you, it really should be
>an incentive to simply respond with appropriate counterarguments
>rather than attacking the messenger.

But you don't have a message, so much, Mr. Smith. You only have
agenda... presently one to 'win' a discussion you suspect you're
out of your depth on, and so all this literary sturm and drang
to cover for it.

>>Besides,
>>your conventional wisdoms about asteroid mining and
>>transportation fall to pieces the moment we detect a planet-
>>killer bearing down on us in fact. You know that to be true.

>It does not "fall to pieces". It is completely a part of my
>"practical manner". Specifically, if there is a known
>intersecting asteroid, then the damage calculations will show
>the amount of money lost due to the damage. Then the world will
>weigh that against the cost of moving the asteroid. A trade
>study will be performed and a trade space searched for options
>and funding profiles/technology development scenarios and
>bottlenecks/critical paths. Then, when a reasonably costed
>program is determined, it will be implemented. But note that all
>these resources are being taken from other research programs or
>society sustinence programs. Someone will be on the losing end
>of the stick! Without an asteroid impact threat, such spending
>redistribution will not occur.

Right! All your practicalities fall to pieces, and new
practicalities evolve at a speed necessary to counteract the
threat. Tomato ... to-mah-to, Mr. Smith.

>>Independent realists _inspired_ by 1930s pulp magazines, half a
>>century of quality science fiction, _and_ Star Trek, of course.
>>Art Clark writes compellingly about communications satellites
>>and they materialize into existence. It's almost that simple,
>>Mr. Smith. Some dreamer had to have the idea first.

>I will agree that there IS something referred to as a "meme"
>that is the infusion into society of an accepted idea which can,
>somehow, influence future outcomes. How this works is unknown.

Snort - that's easy. We, in the aggregate, want it ... and it
happens. It's really that simple in the long alien view.

>I
>simply state that the dream is the easy part,

No sir - that's the hard part... everything else is in a descent
from the idea. Everything else is a corruption of it. Everything
else is an approximation of it. I think you owe creativity a
little more respect, Sir.

>while the
>practical implementation takes a long time. I can easily write a
>computer program that searches a large design space which is
>essentially "dreaming". But practical design solutions must meet
>development cost and time (and other) criteria or they will not
>be realized (at least given current physics or groundrules).

Now you're starting to sound like the adults in a Peanuts
cartoon. Maybe that's why the adults sounded that way in them, I
suppose. They really were missing the point and their
explications so much yadda-yad, as a result.

>>>regarding prose difficulties<<

>>We can take them word for word, Sir. Trouble is, they oftimes
>>get into areas that the respondent isn't comfortable getting
>>into.

>Sorry, no. It is just that the sentence structure is either too
>complicated or apparently irrelevant.

Ok... here's what's going on so you can't say it wasn't said...

It is done, simply, the way it is done out of respect for the
language, and in extension, the reader, Sir. I'm not going to
talk down to the reader, no, or poke teasingly and forgettablely
at the reader's lowest common denominator! NO!

Expect an intelligence, and many times _get_ an intelligence.
Expect Homer Simpson and get him _every_ time.

I am going to use, arguably, the best word available, in my
estimation, _regardless_, Mr. Smith! They aren't words that will
be used only one time, good Sir, they will be used again and
again, in all my pieces fore and aft, for good reason. They are
words that open up new dimensions in time and space for the
individual who goes to the trouble of finding out what they mean
that _first_ time... a simple cut and paste into "Google" on the
internet for instant gratification and an expansion to the
interior of a reader's intellectual bubble! Grasp closer to
reach! Take a step up on a new definition and see farther than
you did before! Finally, I write the best, most considered, and
most respectful kind of language I am capable of producing.

It's a song, Mr. Smith. Songs meant to be sung again and
something wrung from them on every singing.

I can do _no_ less in as much as there are persons reading it! I
_must_ respect that. Moreover, different words put the reader's
head in different places, and with the fact of that dwindling
commodity (of diversity) evaporating rapidly in a contrived
global homogenization of slothful mediocrity as you read, the
reader needs all the difference she can get her sweaty little
cognitive hands on, whether he knows it or not!

The kind of language I'm talking about (and trying to employ
here) has an appreciation imbued by the user to treat the
language as if it were a box of verbal paint. In it are
aspirations to make every word a picture, every sentence a
portrait, and every collection of sentences a virtual holograph.
All things being equal I'd write in a language that begs to be
revisited, like a song, or like classic words of yore. That's
what I aspire to here, with no shame, no embarrassment, and no
guile, either. I would be of respected service, as would any
sociophile.

Words _are_ paints and magics and tools and weapons! They travel
in time, and are as eternal as they are made and preserved. They
are teachers, leaders, and entertainers. They are efficiency.
They are efficacy. They are immortality! I would be immortal...
how about you?

Decidedly, words are the very COIN and FABRIC of cultural
memory! In as much as they paint better, more durable and longer
lasting pictures, they are the ART of primary expression! Our
culture will survive much, much longer than those of antiquity
because (outside the threat of idea [and therefore book!]
burning CSICOPians, or the electricity stops working), the
consolidation of it is going to be very hard to forget. Believe
it!

Finally, enough people _do_ get it, and have acquired a taste for it so that it is _not_ required that you do. too.

>But don't worry, I feel
>the same about some of Ms. Rand's or Mr. Melville's books, so
>you are in good company.

Now there's too little too late, Mr. Smith. Besides, I don't
feel your being _entirely_ sincere with the comparison.

>>The delete key _may_ be appropriate, Sir, in as much as you seem
>>to have a predilection for mocking and sneering, and I won't sit
>>still for it. Antithetical to your (I think self-imposed) lack
>>of understanding , other folks have reported that the
>>communication becomes clearer on subsequent readings you
>>intimate you're not up for. Pity.

>Well, if it was the Bible, I would wish to consider multiple
>readings, but I would not equate your prose with It's meaning.

It's an ongoing letter to my fellow humans, Mr. Smith.

>>>But then this may simply be my own limited mental ability, so I
>>>am sorry for being unable to understand what you are writing in
>>>those cases.

>>Unwilling more than unable, I'd suggest. Your mental ability is
>>not in question, Sir. Neither is mine.

>Okay we are both smart. Perhaps, there is merit in your remark.

Wow! How much nicer this would have gone for both of us had you
couched its like, closer to the front of our shared consternation.

>I _am_ unwilling. But I think it due to laziness in trying to
>understand unusual concept formulations.

Seems to me 'real' engineers have had to overcome 'similar'
problems...

>Maybe I have a
>subconscious fear of such sentence structure due to too many
>English courses.

>However, I would put the ball in the writer's court simply
>because if the writer has trouble getting his point across to
>his audience, what use is he?

I've had some small indication that I have been of use to
persons in a literary sense, Mr. Smith. Maybe they'd have been
more acceptable had they sung your praises initially instead of
pointing out your conjectured need for them.

>I have to write technical reports
>and presentations all the time. If I come across with some hard
>to understand work, I will get nailed for it!

UpDates is decidedly bereft of the reports and presentations you
allude to, Mr. Smith. It might be one of the reason you are
here.

>>>Also, your liberal sprinkling of "Sirs" reminds me
>>>of an English manservant addressing his employer.
>
>>...And that's so ludicrous it must then be my insistence on a
>>certain formality in contention.
>
>Okay, so if you like the guy, you add no Sirs, but if you
>dislike him or are opposed to him you do add Sir. Interesting.

It's manners, Sir.

>Well, I will try to ignore them since they don't help or hurt
>the issue at hand.

How good of you. Thanks.

>>>You, in fact,
>>>dilute the meaning and power of "Sir" by its repetitive use
>>>which seems to be of no more importance, in context, than a
>>>colon or question mark.

>>...or an expletive, Mr. Smith?

>I don't use expletives in my posts. Are you implying that you
>_mean_ "Sir" to be an expletive. That would be very subtle and
>clever of you if so... something I would not do.

We went to different highschools together, Mr. Smith... then I
went to war. I would imagine we've traveled some pretty
disparate paths.

>>>"Sir" should really be used when it is
>>>meant and I FEEL that you do not in most cases.

>>I guess my definition of appropriate manners diverges from
>>yours, considerably.

>I suppose. It just seems that you scatter them like birdseed.
>Whatever.

Yes, Sir - I'm ready to give discussion of them up when you are.

>>>I chime in with a Sir or two to try to make you feel
>>>comfortable.

>>That provoked a pronounced snort over here on this end, Mr.
>>Smith, and like Wendy Connors wrote, required a little clean-up
>>on CRT and keyboard.

>Really? Well, I must be more careful!

Too late - after this engagement my monitor and keyboard look
like a splatter-guard. <g>

>>>Sorry it did not work and you think I am mocking
>>>you.

>>Alone and without complication, this sentence would only have
>>gained an apology accepted. Complicated as it was with all that
>>has gone before I can only stand with arms akimbo and eyes
>>askance.

>Still, I mean it. It is hard to figure out how to react to your
>comments. I shall omit the use of "Sir" to stop "mocking" you.

Ok - but you gotta drop the "quotes" too.

>>>Finally, regarding our difference in viewpoints, I think
>>>dreamers are fine and realists are fine. It takes all kinds in
>>>this world. Both optimists and pessimists are needed. But there
>>>is no need for rancor, only for courteous debate and discussion!

>>No argument with any of that, Sir. Would that you had taken
>>your own lesson. But that's all behind us now... <g>

>>So... ever see a UFO?

>Yes. Over D.C. A black disc in front of the Sun visible only
>because of fog and sun glasses. Not a sun spot or helicopter.
>Seen in the morning for 4 miles on Rt 66 going toward D.C..
>Stayed in same spot relative to the Sun's surface. Angle implied
>at stratospheric altitude (or somewhat below) over D.C.. Either
>a military airship platform (but this was 3 yrs prior to 9/11)
>or alien vehicle. Either option could use a relatively simple
>camoflauge technique to not be seen EXCEPT when in front of the
>Sun. My guess is that our military had no such platform, indeed
>they are funding work right now for such platforms.

..._Do_ tell! UFOs _are_ a puzzle. Nest ce' pas? They are a
neat end-run around too much 'practicality' or at least a
different flavor of it... so says Dolan and Jabobs and Mack and
Friedman. They are an ongoing epiphany for me, Mr. Smith,
sincerely.


alienview.nul -:|:-
  www.AlienView.net