You said that GP "clearly" intended one thing, yet I've seen you in two other threads with people who did not share your reading of those words.
It's fine to state your own reading of what they said and respond in kind, but dictating that your reading is universal when your comment is directly under evidence that it is not is a big leap.
It's basic English dude, let's not complicate it. It's very easy to see what was meant by that, and it's a common sentiment all over the internet that these "space barons" should reallocate their resources towards saving the planet.
If you insist on using 3rd party interpretation rather than 1st party intent to decide the meaning of a statement, I've got 16 upvotes on my comments here so others seem to be reading it the same as I.
But we don't need to vote to understand what "until after" means. It's not esoteric philosophical language - my 6 year old would understand it.
>If you insist on using 3rd party interpretation rather than 1st party intent to decide the meaning of a statement, I've got 16 upvotes on my comments here so others seem to be reading it the same as I
"Argument by upvote" is weak, especially in a forum where I can't actually see your comments vote totals.
Also, you are not the first party, so why do you feel so confident in being able to claim sole interpretation of "1st party intent."
They clearly meant that that space colonization was such a far off goal, that the difference in intensely focusing on it and moderately focusing on it won't cause measurable differences in our lifetime.
Or they didn't, I'm not a mind-reader, but I've given just as much evidence to back up that claim as you have yours.
I don't know first party intent, which I why I asked the user directly in this exact thread, but instead you responded. They still haven't said what they mean.
