Back to the Moon!!!

[ninjabear]

Artificial sperm will save humanity, but not mankind; Earth will become one giant episode of S-- in the City (a show Bugger---or should I say Dr. Soong?---had never heard of before I mentioned the narrative character, Carrie Bradshaw.

What I want to know is what the hell artie-fishel sperm or any of this other dren has to do with going back to the moon?

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

ninjabear wrote: What I want to know is what the hell artie-fishel sperm or any of this other dren has to do with going back to the moon?

The conversation about artificial sperm is a direct off-shoot from a line in
the ORIGINAL post of this topic that, while I'm assuming was not intended
to be deliberately sexist, was not gender inclusive.

As such, it may not seem relevant to the title of the thread, but is
still on topic as it derives from the original post.

And if you need it to tie more directly to the title, imagery of a rocket
ship landing on the much larger, spherical moon is reminiscent of
fertilization.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

lucifer666 wrote: Your right Bear its always the women who want rid of the men ....

Not ALL of the men. We have a list of the ones we're keeping....

lucifer666 wrote: but I guarantee they'll miss us males if they ever succeed ....after all who else can they manipulate and bully about

Maybe without certain frustrating influences, there will be no pent up
aggression to take out on anyone by bullying and manipulating....

lucifer666 wrote: Because your creating an artificial sperm which means your going to create the strongest healthiest sperm you can so it has the best chance of fertilising an egg .....it just appears to me like creating the perfect father gene for a child ...

Whoa. Basic biology. The sperm is the delivery vehicle of the haploid
set of DNA from one parent -- even if the artificial sperm were more
effective at delivery (which is probably isn't, and would need to be
accomplished in vitro to be successful), that still has nothing to do
with the genome it's delivering. The alleles of the genes it's delivering
haven't been designed or selected artificially, they've just been
packaged artificially. Tampering with what's inside is something
else entirely.

lucifer666 wrote: Oh yeah keep it up you little tyke.... I'll get you back ....just you wait

Whatcha gonna do, Lucy? Pull the football away just as I'm about
to kick it like you do to Charlie Brown?

[lucifer666 (deleted)]

ninjabear wrote: What I want to know is what the hell artie-fishel sperm or any of this other dren has to do with going back to the moon?
Also if the sexy swallow there is correct in her predictions it may be women leading the trip back to the moon ....oh along with their artificial milkshake

iswallowedabug wrote: Not ALL of the men. We have a list of the ones we're keeping.... No I don't care how many of you women have me on your lists I'm not staying ...so there!!

iswallowedabug wrote: Maybe without certain frustrating influences, there will be no pent up aggression to take out on anyone by bullying and manipulating.... Yep I can see that happening ....because with the men out of the way all you women would have no reason then to B---- behind each others backs or gossip in little packs mmmmmm sounds like a real harmonious world without us men to deflect it mmm I wonder??

iswallowedabug wrote: Whoa. Basic biology. The sperm is the delivery vehicle of the haploid
set of DNA from one parent -- even if the artificial sperm were more
effective at delivery (which is probably isn't, and would need to be
accomplished in vitro to be successful), that still has nothing to do
with the genome it's delivering. The alleles of the genes it's delivering
haven't been designed or selected artificially, they've just been
packaged artificially. Tampering with what's inside is something
else entirely.
Awww so the sperm was created from embryonic stem cells or should I say the sperm seeds were successfully grown from there .....so the delivery system has been artificially created to deliver a clone DNA part ...I wonder whose cloned DNA would be used to be Daddy???? Not to mention the extra difficulties involved in such prodedures ........ I wonder what they mean't when they say 'abnormal patterns of growth' when they were talking about the mice that were created using this procedure and has it any links with what goes wrong with many clones!!

iswallowedabug wrote: Whatcha gonna do, Lucy? Pull the football away just as I'm about to kick it like you do to Charlie Brown?
Just keep it up now Peppermint Patty ...oh peanuts I should have called you Marcie

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
Revelation 6:8

[cooky37]

ooh cut Swallow a break, lucy. keep in mind it's my fault for your new nick name. you know, it you read between the lines what swallow realy is saying is
I love Lucy and she loves me
we're as happy as two can be
sometime we argue but then
oh how we love making up again

Lucy kisses like no one can
she's my misses and i'm her man
and life is happy you see
Cause I love Lucy, Yes I love Lucy
and Lucy loves me

(please remember to sing with a cuban accent)


Will someone shut that man up
NEVER!

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

lucifer666 wrote: No I don't care how many of you women have me on your lists I'm not staying ...so there!!

Are you saying you don't have the staying power?

lucifer666 wrote: ...I wonder whose cloned DNA would be used to be Daddy????

James Marsters? Paul Darrow? Richard Feynman? Einstein?

How could one choose?

lucifer666 wrote: Not to mention the extra difficulties involved in such prodedures ........ I wonder what they mean't when they say 'abnormal patterns of growth' when they were talking about the mice that were created using this procedure and has it any links with what goes wrong with many clones!!

It's probably the issue of imprinting. We still can't quite figure
that one out. Different sets of genes are inactivated during development
when you get them from the paternal vs maternal chromosomes. We
have yet to figure out how to faithfully reproduce that. But someday....

lucifer666 wrote: Just keep it up now Peppermint Patty ...oh peanuts I should have called you Marcie

Aww....did someone get up on the wrong side of the fire and brimstone?

You know what they say, Lucy, if you can't take the heat....

cooky37 wrote: you read between the lines what swallow realy is saying is
I love Lucy and she loves me....

Hey, Cooky! You've got some 'splaining to do!

[cooky37]

babbaloo... BABBALOOO

Will someone shut that man up
NEVER!

[lucifer666 (deleted)]

iswallowedabug wrote: Are you saying you don't have the staying power?
Why would you be disappointed babe?
Don't worry of course that isn't what I am saying

iswallowedabug wrote: James Marsters? Paul Darrow? Richard Feynman? Einstein? Lucifer666?
How could one choose?
I know...... decisions decisions but you really can't go wrong with your latter sugestion there

iswallowedabug wrote: It's probably the issue of imprinting. We still can't quite figure that one out. Different sets of genes are inactivated during development when you get them from the paternal vs maternal chromosomes. We have yet to figure out how to faithfully reproduce that. But someday....
The scary part is they will probably go on ahead with this artificial sperm and carry on with only females existing in the future and then when things go inevitably wrong and defects begin to appear there won't be one man around to fix the problem

iswallowedabug wrote: Hey, Cooky! You've got some 'splaining to do!
cooky37 wrote: babbaloo... BABBALOOO
Is this some weird converstion linked with I love Lucy that you both are having??


And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
Revelation 6:8

[fringey]

iswallowedabug wrote: ninjabear wrote: What I want to know is what the hell artie-fishel sperm or any of this other dren has to do with going back to the moon?

The conversation about artificial sperm is a direct off-shoot from a line in
the ORIGINAL post of this topic that, while I'm assuming was not intended
to be deliberately sexist, was not gender inclusive.

As such, it may not seem relevant to the title of the thread, but is
still on topic as it derives from the original post.

And if you need it to tie more directly to the title, imagery of a rocket
ship landing on the much larger, spherical moon is reminiscent of
fertilization.



The term used was "man", not "A man" and is inlcusive of all of "mankind". Therefore it is not sexist except to those overly politically correct or oversensitive. ducking Besides which, I don't really know about any women who worked on the Apollo project, so it may have been all men who created it, for all I know. We are talking about the 60's here, and those were times just becoming enlightened enough to think about including women. Now, if there were women on the project, I would be interested in knowing about that. I would think there had to be some working at NASA, but I have never heard of them. Aside from those working in support staff, does anyone know of any women who helped create the drives, math, etc.?

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[fringey]

Bug got me interested in women's role in the years leading up the landing of men on the moon. I found this article which is very itnriguing, because I had never heard of the Mercury 13. I think a movie is due!

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Women rose above NASA's sexist attitude

By MARTHA ACKMANN
GUEST COLUMNIST

Sitting in the VIP stands at today's space shuttle launch will be Wally Funk, a 66-year-old pilot from Texas. Funk is at Cape Canaveral because shuttle commander Eileen Collins asked her to be there.

Collins invited Funk and 12 other women pilots -- now known as Mercury 13 -- to witness NASA's Return to Flight. "I stand on their shoulders," Collins says. A generation ago, the Mercury 13 paved the way for women in space. But Collins is about the only person who recognizes their achievement.

In 1961, 13 crackerjack women pilots secretly traveled to Albuquerque, N.M., to undergo the same grueling tests that John Glenn, Alan Shepard and the other Mercury astronauts endured. Dr. William Randolph Lovelace II, the head of Life Sciences for NASA, helped select the Mercury astronauts and wanted to find out if top-flight women pilots might perform as well.

They did. In some cases the women even surpassed the test scores of the men. Lovelace believed because women weighed less and consumed less oxygen, they might in fact make better astronauts than men.

Lovelace arranged for additional psychological exams and space flight simulation tests for the women. But at the 11th hour, just as the women were poised to begin final testing in Florida, NASA pulled the plug. It had no interest in women astronauts and viewed Lovelace's testing as an independent project. Why waste money on women, NASA argued.

That's when the Mercury 13 women broke their silence. After having risked jobs and marriages for the chance to fly into space, they were not about to let NASA's sexist attitude stand in their way.

They spoke out and arranged for the meeting with Vice President Lyndon Johnson, head of the Space Council. After listening to the women's appeal, Johnson said his hands were tied: A women-in-space program was NASA's call. What the women did not know was that Johnson later penned his opinion at the bottom of a letter to NASA. When it came to the possibility of women in space, Johnson had just four words: "Let's Stop This Now."

With few cards left to play, the women asked for a meeting before the House Subcommittee on Science and Astronautics. Standing before Congress, their request was plainspoken: "We seek only a place in our nation's space future without discrimination."

What followed was a nightmare. Congressmen made jokes about women's reproductive capacities. Called in to testify, astronaut John Glenn said what many were already thinking. Men go off and fly the planes and fight the wars and women stay at home. "It's a fact of our social order."

Glenn's comments were the last straw and Congress decided that space was no place for a woman. It took the monumental leaps of the civil rights and women's movements in the '60s and '70s before NASA in 1978 finally allowed women in the space program.

But it was too late for the Mercury 13. They never got their chance to fly.

Last month the Adler Planetarium in Chicago did what few organizations have done. They recognized the Mercury 13 with their 2005 Leaders in Space Science Award. Capt. James Lovell, commander of Apollo 13, applauded the women for the crucial role they played in space history.

The rest of the country should follow Adler's lead. There are no exhibits chronicling the Mercury 13's achievement at the Smithsonian, Kennedy or Johnson space centers. Around the country, science and history museums don't mention them. No college or university has ever awarded them an honorary degree. The White House has never acknowledged the women's sacrifice.

The American public needs to at least know their names: Myrtle Cagle, Jerrie Cobb, Jan and Marion Dietrich, Wally Funk, Jane Hart, Jean Hixon, Gene Nora Jessen, Irene Leverton, Sarah Ratley, Bernice Steadman, Jerri Truhill, Rhea Woltman.

Now is the time that the rest of the country appreciates what Collins has known for a long time. The Mercury 13 opened the door.

Martha Ackmann is the author of "The Mercury 13: The True Story of Thirteen Women and the Dream of Space Flight." She teaches at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts.

(removed)

Patrick
a.k.a. Fringey, The Fringe Element
"A life lived without passion is a life not lived.

[ninjabear]

I can't name three male scientists, let alone three of the women but they are there, I've seen 'em.
Only one female astronaut springs to mind, one cosmonaut and one space tourist; unfortunately I don't get Lifetime on my cable set-up anymore but hell's yeah, we should all go to the moon.

Hey guys (wink-wink, say no more) I have three words:
Playboy Mansion Luna.

Sad to say THAT would probably be sufficient motivation---but I get to stay when the feminazis take over, because I make a delicious cheesecake.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

fringey wrote: The term used was "man", not "A man" and is inlcusive of all of "mankind". Therefore it is not sexist except to those overly politically correct or oversensitive. ducking

Fringey, I think you are well-meaning and not intending to
be sexist. However, "man" is not inclusive of both men and women,
any more than saying "woman" is inclusive of both men and women, and
it's not being overly sensitive of me to point that out. It just means I
can read and I have more than one brain cell.

Language is powerful, and it influences people in ways we are not
always conscious of. Saying "man" when you mean "men and women"
is still subtly marginalizing and demeaning women, and therefore
ultimately demeaning BOTH men and women.

There is a fantastic essay that addresses this issue, written by
Douglas Hofstadter (under a different name I think) called
"A Person Paper on Purity in Language." You can easily find in by
a google search on the web.

In brief, this essay satirizes your very viewpoint that using "man" to
mean both genders is not sexist. It replaces sexism with racism, and
starts from a different English language in which "man" has been
replaced with "white" ("chairwhite" "mailwhite") where "white" refers
either to white or inclusively to both black and white, where black
refers only to non-white. Similarly, the pronoun "ble" replaces "he"
when referring to a person of color, but if the color is unknown, or if
the person is white, the pronoun "whe" is used.

It becomes blatantly obvious under these circumstances, that using
language in this way is clearly racist. It's the same way with sexism,
it's just hard to see it because we were raised in this culture with these
sexist traditions in our language.

I'm not saying that people who use "man" to refer to women are
deliberately being sexist, but they (and you) are perpetuating a sexist
tradition that ultimately degrades and demeans both genders. Ideally,
our society will move past these traditions and utilize language that
embraces everyone, rather than marginalizing everyone. And that's
the goal of pointing out such sexist language -- not to make you feel
bad or to accuse you, but to make you think and press for change in
the future. Because don't we want a better world where people
aren't devalued?

There hereby ends this grammar lesson and public service
announcement.

[cooky37]

If you followed the news a week or so ago you'd see that they found the "A" in Armstrong's speach. His, Neal Armstrong, a man, first small step beyond the crib of Mother Earth. Was a Giant leap For all Mankind.
now if Mankind is too Raciest/sexist for you than rage on

Now I am just as bad for getting this thread off topic I apolagize.

Two more thing then back on topic
After all these years of trying to come up with gender nuetral names we still have MANHOLE COVERS.
If they hadn't changed the title of Mail Men to postal Workers The term for Going on an anger fueled rampage at work would be called "GOING MAIL" not "GOING POSTAL"

the tech needed for a lunar base, can be converted to better life on earth

with the untouched minerals, low Gravity, and No Atmosphare makes it a good manufacturing plant for interstellar and orbital craft.
the permanant settlement will be a great location for scientific experiments

and finaly
IT'S THERE




Will someone shut that man up
NEVER[/i][/b]

[fringey]

Ya know Bug, I made a joke and you turned it into a rant and an insult. This topic started out as something uplifting to be celebrated and you have turned it into a sexist diatribe. Do you just constantly look for things to be angry about? Sorry to be so blunt, but this does get tiresome.

[iswallowedabug (deleted)]

fringey wrote: Ya know Bug, I made a joke and you turned it into a rant and an insult.

I did no such thing. I pointed out that your use of language was
sexist, and I did so with humor to deliberately NOT rant. All the
while I acknowledged that you likely had no intention of being sexist.

fringey wrote: This topic started out as something uplifting to be celebrated and you have turned it into a sexist diatribe.

Yes, the topic was uplifting, but your language was not. I did not
pervert your words in any way or turn anything into something it
wasn't.

fringey wrote: Do you just constantly look for things to be angry about? Sorry to be so blunt, but this does get tiresome.

What gets tiresome, Fringey, is constantly being bombarded with
sexist images and language in everyday life and then being told
that it's not a problem. You, yourself, have pointed out that we should be
accepting and tolerant in these forums and not marginalize or
discriminate against others. I found your language to be problematic, so
I pointed that out in a humorous way that led to more serious
conversation. If you want to be sexist, go ahead, but when I see it, I'm,
going to call you on it, just like I will call people on it when they are being
racist or homophobic, etc.

Would you rather that I keep quiet when I see a statement being
made that demeans half our population? I can't do that. It's not right
to sit by and do nothing or say nothing when you see such behavior.
I wasn't insulting you -- I wasn't even criticizing YOU. I was trying to
educate you that your language WASN'T benign like you thought it
was. I thought you would appreciate knowing that, because I
assumed that you wouldn't want to be sexist intentionally. Was I
wrong about that?

Honestly, with the various bigotry and prejudice in these forums
lately, I'm just about ready to write off Trekpassions and not come back.
Then you can perpetuate whatever sexist language you want without
hearing from me.