Quote:
Originally Posted by markbakovic
it kinda goes to "directions for future research" though, which totally fits in a discussion. It also serves as a mild antidote to the current debate about the constitution of the National Science Foundation (who funded LIGO) review panels (some polly reckons they should contain his mates who don't think spending more than $3 on a mirror is "in the taxpayer's interest" because you can't bomb a resource rich failed state with the word "interferometer"): ie This Is A Big Deal, Possibly The Biggest Deal In The Last 50 Years.
If you don't brag like a salesman about what the funding you get is paying for, it seems like the assumption is that it must have been wasted, because politicians have discovered it's easier to say "Do you have an ill-informed opinion? I have it too!" than to actually do their job of convincing the public that the things government spends money on are actually good things to spend it on. Unless that thing is paying them millions in campaign donations, of course, which Advancing Human Understanding LLC has f-all capacity to do...
</rant>
|
Fair enough but I just dont think such should be in such releases.
The job of convincing should be outside the document... or if this is acceptable why not add at the end of such news.... support our research and subscibe like utube...or the like.
Well you wouldnt do that and any lesser milder approach such as I referred to I dont find any more acceptable. Just dont think such personal comment has any place in the document it is an opinion that adds nothing to the document.
alex