On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all
who want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific
proposals, and the grant winners are selected amongst those which
are submitted, which were scored & ranked based on the quality &
value of their respective proposals by an independent panel of
subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle>
It's America in 1962. Slavery is legal once again. The few Jews who still
survive hide under assumed names. In San Francisco, the I Ching is as
common as the Yellow Pages. All because some twenty years earlier the
United States lost a war — and is now occupied by Nazi Germany and Japan.
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who
want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals, and
the grant winners are selected amongst those which are submitted, which
were scored & ranked based on the quality & value of their respective proposals by an independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle>
It's America in 1962. Slavery is legal once again. The few Jews who still
survive hide under assumed names. In San Francisco, the I Ching is as
common as the Yellow Pages. All because some twenty years earlier the
United States lost a war — and is now occupied by Nazi Germany and Japan.
On 6/2/25 8:34 AM, -hh wrote:
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who want to
participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals, and the grant >> winners are selected amongst those which are submitted, which were scored & >> ranked based on the quality & value of their respective proposals by an
independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
DOGE was invented to put some likely SENSIBLE [shrieking] people
into the loop.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/
show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle>
It's America in 1962. Slavery is legal once again. The few Jews
who still
survive hide under assumed names. In San Francisco, the I Ching
is as
common as the Yellow Pages. All because some twenty years earlier >> the
United States lost a war — and is now occupied by Nazi Germany
and Japan.
Neither Germany or Japan had the capability to invade the continental
United States.
On 6/2/25 8:34 AM, -hh wrote:
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who
want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals,
and the grant winners are selected amongst those which are submitted,
which were scored & ranked based on the quality & value of their
respective proposals by an independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
I don't think we can entirely remove the 'subjective'
aspect in this. What is considered 'worthy' or
'important' will ALWAYS vary from year to year, from
admin to admin.
DOGE was invented to put some likely SENSIBLE people
into the loop.
Even they cannot be totally objective,
but there ARE 'sensible' people who can smell idiocy
and partisanship from 100 miles away. We NEED such
people, in a position to DO something if needed. The
rule by pure partisanship method keeps FAILING BADLY.
Will we get a 'sensible' POTUS/legislature ? Sorry,
but I don't see it happening. 'Sensible' DOESN'T
SELL in the MSM and beyond - 'too boring'. Only
extremists get screen time. The "MSM Effect" has
NOT done the world any good service ... indeed is
likely to take it to the brink.
On 6/2/25 22:43, Anonymous wrote:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/ show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle>
It's America in 1962. Slavery is legal once again. The few Jews who still
survive hide under assumed names. In San Francisco, the I Ching is as
common as the Yellow Pages. All because some twenty years earlier the
United States lost a war — and is now occupied by Nazi Germany and Japan.
Neither Germany or Japan had the capability to invade the continental
United States.
That's odd...
I seem to recall *both* having done that.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:16:25 -0400, c186282 wrote:
The WokieComs won't admit it, but Trump, in practice,
is pretty much a MODERATE. Doesn't seem to like ANY
of the extremes.
<laughs and points>
Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:16:25 -0400, c186282 wrote:
The WokieComs won't admit it, but Trump, in practice,
is pretty much a MODERATE. Doesn't seem to like ANY
of the extremes.
<laughs and points>
Trump is a 1980s Democrat, Governor Shill.
Why don't you die of GRIDS, Governor Shill?
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who
want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals, and
the grant winners are selected amongst those which are submitted, which
were scored & ranked based on the quality & value of their respective proposals by an independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
-hh wrote:
On 6/2/25 22:43, Anonymous wrote:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 22:17:06 -0400, c186282wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
You don't miss many tricks but you sure missed this one.
What language would you be speaking if Chicago University had not
gotten federal support to build the first nuclear pile? Likewise,
Columbia and UC Berkeley were instrumental in the creation of the
first Bomb.
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/
show/216363.The_Man_in_the_High_Castle>
It's America in 1962. Slavery is legal once again. The few Jews >>>> who still
survive hide under assumed names. In San Francisco, the I Ching >>>> is as
common as the Yellow Pages. All because some twenty years
earlier the
United States lost a war — and is now occupied by Nazi Germany >>>> and Japan.
Neither Germany or Japan had the capability to invade the continental
United States.
That's odd...
I seem to recall *both* having done that.
Not at any large scale.
On 6/2/25 8:34 AM, -hh wrote:
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who
want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals,
and the grant winners are selected amongst those which are submitted,
which were scored & ranked based on the quality & value of their
respective proposals by an independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
Fair idea - but the "current system" HIDES many
deeper darker ultra-PARTISAN motives.
Sorry, but that's what it's become.
Got any good suggestions to FIX that, or do
you just want the neo-Marxists to roll along ?
Siri Cruz wrote:
On 2/6/25 21:48, c186282 wrote:Including continuing to spend money on programs for which Congressional authorization had EXPIRED?
The DOGE people were NOT "morons" in the least -
mostly SENSIBLE people who can smell govt idiocy
and waste from 100 miles away. Need MORE of them.
Oh, there was a REASON Trump/Musk didn't like
those programs .........
Every fraud and abuse just so happen to be an agency enforcing laws Musk was >> violating. The fines of the enforcement were costing him money.
On 6/4/25 02:27, c186282 wrote:
On 6/2/25 8:34 AM, -hh wrote:
On 6/1/25 22:17, c186282 wrote:
The US govt does NOT have "a duty" to support Harvard in
any way or form. Support has been voluntary ... and indeed
maybe a little suspicious. Perhaps it NEVER should have
supported big colleges ?
On the flip, there IS a huge amount of sci/tech talent
at those universities. Some are important to defense
work and the future of American industry.
The problem is that it's hard to pick and choose WHO
and WHAT the govt will fund. TOO easy for it to take
on a partisan appearance. How to fund research on
better nuke reactors but NOT fund 'queer studies'
and pro-Hamas people ?
So, is there a generic fix ???
How about having open call on selected research topics, where all who
want to participate is free to submit detailed scientific proposals,
and the grant winners are selected amongst those which are submitted,
which were scored & ranked based on the quality & value of their
respective proposals by an independent panel of subject matter experts.
You know ... literally what the current system already is.
Fair idea - but the "current system" HIDES many
deeper darker ultra-PARTISAN motives.
Sorry, but that's what it's become.
Got any good suggestions to FIX that, or do
you just want the neo-Marxists to roll along ?
Sure: execute those who keep on claiming "Deep State" without proof.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:27:25 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
Because conservatives now control all three branches of government.
There is no check and balance anymore.
Anonymous wrote:
Will it be a mestizo or a black who suffocates you with a pillow in your
nursing home?
Niggers will assfuck you before they end your life. Watch your back boy.
On 6/7/25 11:24 AM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
c186282 wrote:
Donald Trump's history with Adolf Hitler and his Nazi writings:
Ah ... more NAZIs ........
ANALYSIS
Even after backlash, Trump again echoed his words at a campaign
rally.
ByJonathan Karl
December 20, 2023, 8:30 PM
Look ... 'politics', 'leadership' ... a LOT of
that crowd will 'echo' Hitler or Lenin or Mao
from time to time. "People/Civ-Management' has
not changed since the dawn of civ.
However stating some of the Truths does NOT make
them Hitler's or Mao's or Lenin's.
Or don't you GET that - or don't WANT to get it ???
At this point, there MUST be therapy for TDS ....
c186282 wrote:
Ah ... more NAZIs ........
Donald Trump's history with Adolf Hitler and his Nazi writings: ANALYSIS
Even after backlash, Trump again echoed his words at a campaign rally. ByJonathan Karl
December 20, 2023, 8:30 PM
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:39:34 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,650 |
| Posted today: | 2 |