From: "Mark" 


"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:445f51dd{at}w3.nls.net...
>> No, not give up, but face reality and redirect our efforts toward areas
>> we can certainly have success in
>
> You are assuming we can have no success against even a partially natural
> occurrence, you sell us *way* short.

I think, rather, that the issue has been framed as a catastrophic disaster
that we have to act upon quickly to save mankind. I'm saying it's just as
likely that it has been miscast and will bring greater good than harm in
the overall picture and that it would behoove us to dedicate at least as
much funding to adaptation and exploitation of the event to our benefit as
those that want to work only from a prevention point-of-view -- prevention
that I'm convinced is futile, which is not to say that that research can't
overlap into proactive inititiatives as well.

So, the other side of the coin is that *you* are selling us *way* short on
our ability to benefit from the event rather than try to prevent it.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5