🚀 go-pugleaf

Dale Amon writes:

> Several individuals have been slandered who are not present to defend
> themselves. 

Dale, you falsely accuse me of slander (although you mean libel) which is
a crime and are, therefore, engaging in libel.  Either substantiate or 
retract your accusation against me.  Do so in a timely manner.

I can claim that members of the National Space Society's Legislative 
Committee are engaging in unethical conduct all I want.  Even Edwin 
Meese states that while unethical conduct is not a crime, people should 
still not engage in it.  If someone in Meese's position can make such 
statements, certainly I can, and I should not be libeled for doing so.

Dale flatters himself by association with Scott Pace et al.  He isn't
in the same league as the members of the Legislative Committee who are 
paid to work in government funded aerospace.  These "citizen space
activists" claiming to be the political representatives of thousands of 
naive space enthusiasts are far more unethical than Dale.  Dale is just a 
nice guy who wants to get along with everyone by going with the flow.  
Too bad the flow happens to be so destructive to Dale's goals.
 
> Since our organizational watch word is "I WANT TO GO!!!!!" I would
> suggest that most of our more energetic members will eventually work
> professionally in some facit of space. 
>                         ... I want to go, and I work with other people
> who also want to go. Anyone who doesn't had better get out of my way.

Where does it say in any NSS document "I WANT TO GO!!!!!!", Dale?  
The world does have priorities other than letting you and your
friends go to space regardless of what gets in your way.  Your adolescent
urges will not receive the funding you seek.  Why not face reality?  Work 
for real advance in space instead of making unsuccessful attempts at 
propping up NASA's suppression of public science and private development.  
Sure you will lose a few friends but you don't have to be friends with 
people who are getting in the way of your only real hope of going to space.  

> I will also note that "aerospace" money does not dominate the
> organization. Such monies are received through the AIAC (Aerospace
> Industries Association Council), but are used only for special
> projects, NOT for operating expenses. 

According to the financial report presented at the space development
conference, AIAC funding is used for OPERATING EXPENSES.  Perhaps Dale 
contradicts the facts here because the NSS Board of Directors was denied 
access to NSS financial statements that were, instead, given to the AIAC.  
Both of these facts prove Dale's claim that the AIAC is "at a safe arms 
length" to be ridiculous on the face of it.

> I will also state (having been one of the people who voluntarily worked for
> severals days to encode last fall's survey) that a vast majority of the
> membership places strong support of the space station in the context of
> going for a lunar base and then to Mars. The policy stands of the
> organization follow this.  I'm personally in favor of Space
> Industries/WESPACE, External Tank Company, etc INSTEAD of the station.
> But so long as I am a representative of a membership that
> feels otherwise, I will bow to their wishes while occasionally pointing
> out the alternatives and working to insure they are noticed.

Dale defends the existence of aerospace leaders in positions of trust
and authority in NSS.  Yet these leaders, by Dale's own statement, have 
not led the membership to a rational view of space activities, choosing 
instead to promote large government development projects which pay their
salaries.  The membership of NSS wants valuable things to happen in space.
They have been duped, with the help of the NSS leadership, into thinking 
that Space Station and other bogus projects are the only way this will 
happen.  It is hardly surprising that, in such an environment, the NSS 
membership would answer a biased survey in a way that follows the 
leadership's greed.

> I will also note the copy of the Space Cause voters guide in front of
> me has Dukakis as the first entry and gives him nearly a full page. 

In the previous voters guide, which had been circulated for months,
Scott Pace rather transparently tried to get away with saying that
Dukakis had no space policy even though it had been announced in
advance of other policies published in the same guide.  This changed
only after I caught him in the act and confronted him on this net (just
as he supported a rather uncontroversial commercial space measure
after I confronted him on the net about his failure to act decisively
in favor of commercial space).  I wonder which part of Dukakis's policy 
Scott disagreed with?  Was it the termination of NASP?  Termination of the 
current space station program?  The way Scott changes his story at 
his convenience, we'll certainly never know.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com