"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative
governments that are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan
can be used as an example, but Bush isn't doing very good things
for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under
Reagan, less popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared
poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither
over the latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

What exactly about my statement escapes you? Other than the obvious,
all of it.

Well, aside from a rationale for that hoary old spurious distinction
between so-called "hard" sciences and others, there's also the cryptic
distinction between "hard" and "less popular".

*insert rolling eyes here*

Careful they don't get stepped on.

It is a fact that Reagan spent plenty on physics in order to achieve
star wars,

Yep, that is a fact.

while he made no bones about cutting research into alternative
fuels and other environmentally friendly sciences.

Also true.

The fact is that
Reagan dismantled Carter's proposed alternative fuels program as fast
as he could.

Well, not privy to the details of national politics, I guess I don't
know whether or not he did that as fast as he possibly could.
However, I'll take your word for it.

Anyway, I think I see my error. I wasn't aware that "popular" means
something that did well under Reagan. Silly me, I had supposed the
adjective described something that enjoyed widespread support......or
something like that. I WILL say, in my own defense, that the Latin
root from which "popular" is derived seemed to support my illusion.

Are you so blinded by your dislike of me that you cannot even see
that simple fact?

Dislike? Hm......do you know something I don't? Is there some reason
I should dislike you? Um.......we haven't actually met or anything,
have we? Was I drinking heavily?

As to facts, I agreed to every one that you posted and that I
recognized in this round. You will have noted my willingness to take
your word on the one. If that was the one you were referring to, then
I'd say, no, not blind.......just not in the loop. However, as
blindness appears to be the crucial test, then obviously I could, if
guilty, have missed another. So, I guess you'll have to answer for
me. Did I identify the right fact.......or was there another that I
didn't see?

Imbecile indeed.

Indeed indeed.

Wolfgang




Well shucks hoss I guess I just mistook your overt display of hostility

Hostility? You think an analysis based on close reading is hostility?
Would it surprise you much to be told that you ain't quite learned
everything yet?

to everything I've posted lately

Lately? Hm.......you don't remember me, huh?

as an indicator that you might have some
personal dislike that was manifesting itself in your postings.

Well, I confess that there are a number of things that I don't much like in
this world. And, given that I don't brood on them much and that I don't
make much of an effort to correlate what I think about some of them with
everything that I read and write in ROFF, I can hardly deny that some of my
feelings about some of them might manifest themselves in some of my
contributions here. However, I suggest that if YOU have time to keep track
of such things (not to mention the inclination)....and God knows I certainly
don't....then you might want to find yourself a hobby or something.

As for accuracy I'd give you high marks this time,

I assure you that I'm incapable of deciding whether I'm more thrilled or
flattered by this.

you appear to have
both accepted and validated most of the appropriate points.

As has been pointed out by writers and thinkers since time immemorial,
things ain't always exactly as they appear. That said, one is left
wondering who thinks which is appropriate to what and why.....and, for that
matter, why anyone should care.

and most
graciously gave me the slightest bit of leeway on one where the speed of
the event might be subject to question. I admit, my statement was lacking
precision and was more rhetorical, yet still based in historical fact.

I really do hope you know what you're nattering about. It seems to me that
if we're going to have an adult discussion, at least one of us should.

So can I take it that you're withdrawing your original objections,

Objections? Did I have objections? I'd really appreciate it if you could
tell me what they were.

phrased so adriotly with references to pointy heads and Maine?

Ah yes! I remember that part!

Had something to do with the immense popularity of physics as compared to
the arcane and largely ignored environmental sciences, ainna?

Or are
there more details to hash out?

Wouldn't surprise me all that much. Let's see, shall we?

Wolfgang