Wrong as usual. Post 57 asserted that I had a particular position that only two viewpoints were possible. I disputed that. No where did I oppose or preclude privately-funded ventures. At the same time, a national priority in exploration and development should also remain an option, although certainly a debatable one, as all publically-funded ventures should be. The neo-trog characterization was offered in opposition to the viewpoint that such publicly funded ventures should be excluded, because it narrows our options and limits our possibilities when we might otherwise be free to collectively apply our resources to a national policy or goal. You're free to object to such characterization on personal grounds, but doing so indicates casts the objection into more of a "protesting too much" form.
posted on 01/09/2004 1:50:38 PM PST
Wrong as usual.
What a blowhard.
posted on 01/09/2004 2:19:47 PM PST
(I clicked the 'Spell' button. Did you turn into a toad or, are you still a FRetard?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson