Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lane
I'm sorry but you are ****ing insane. Mods can we have a thread ban here. JFC the stupidity in this one.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lane
You are so woefully uneducated on this issue it would be far better for you if you didn't comment further so others can't see the depth of your ignorance.
|
You're just butthurt because someone doesn't agree that your pet project should get the amount of funding it currently receives (let alone more). It's not my fault you can't comprehend diminishing returns. You and Fish say it is woefully underfunded because it is 0.6% of a huge, huge budget--yet other branches of science--branches that are generating new discoveries at more accelerated rates-- get even less funding. Put the money there like I said you idiot. You complain because you two compare NASA's funding to the amount of money spent on pet food, yet you don't tell folks the fact that NASA's funding is so bloated it is more than many states entire fiscal budgets. It is a boondoggle.