In article <_dL3g.14$4I6.12@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:e2msrf$54k$2@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

I think it's more the case - of going along with something that has
already been used, and not being keen on trying something new and
radical, which has been untried.
Which money being a problem --- that it is difficult to know which
route is the best one to go for?

I would say that nucleur fusion is not the way to go - and to show
there
is a better way, is a necessity. And I don't know anything about this
area...
I think the public consciousness would go this way too --- towards
what
seems the best safe route...

Yes that is a fair point. I know there used to be a program called
Quatermass on British TV back in the early 60s which involved things like
scientists, making Anti-matter or drilling to the centre of the Earth.
Generally meddling with the Forces of Nature, which would invariably result
in some sort of unforeseen consequences, such as people becoming
contaminated and turning into a hideous monster that would go round
terrorising people, till eventually the Army would have to be called in to
cordon off the area, but the day would be saved by Quatermass who if I
remember rightly was some sort of Scientist working as a trouble shooter for
the Government, Dr Who has used similar story lines.

But although fiction I guess it does reflect people's fears over new
Scientific developments

There will always be a danger with new technology.
Such as the military getting hold of it, and turning it into something
really dangerous. (me thinks that the military in any country,
particularly that of superpowers, ought to be tightly kept on a leash,
such that they don't endanger mankind...)
It is not the technology itself that is dangerous, but to what uses
it can be put to. Like gunpowder being used for a long time, then it was
used for warfare - which changed the face of warfare forever...

It would be nice if there were no conspiracies at all, and no
hidden agendas, etc etc.
I would say that a whole list of events that the US have done, is not
what it is presented to the public to be, since Pearl Harbour.
And no country will have any faith in the US, given it's track record
since then ... that it actually seems to be involved with the
disasters
it has faced, it is of their own making, ie. CIA involvement with this
or that, undercover, in secret.

Anything - regarding knowledge, can be made into a weapon.

Well I think are always going to be conspiracies theories, some of them are
just meant to exercise the mind and look at events from different angles to
try to make some sort of sense out of them. Some of them are quite
entertaining like I thought this article about Hitler being a British Agent
was quite entertaining http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4101
But I don't think one should necessarily believe these things :)

That said in any democracy you are going to get factions and rogue elements
working toward different agendas. It is for example a fact that there was a
conspiracy to sign a pact with Hitler, and seems to be the primary reason
why King Edward 8th abdicated in 1936 (He was a raving Nazi and spent the
War living in France). So there were odd things taking place in high places
and in secret and things never are as simple as they may seem in the
official version of history. But if there was a conspiracy it was exposed
and crushed and events took an entirely different direction, but whether the
conspiracy went to the extent of Hitler actually being in the employ of the
British Secret Service is a little bit far fetched.
-- 
Amanda

There are still a lot of things that happened during WWII that we don't
know the full story about. Like Rudolph Hess - what was he trying to do
in England? And of history - what is the history of the Windsor family?
Prior to WWII...

One of the things put forward about Hitler, was that he was a homosexual,
and for him to have a mistress, was merely to cover up his true sexuality.
Hitler was one who knew how to manipulate his public image, and the public.
Much like Bush does, while Hitler may have written his own speeches,
I very much doubt that Bush does..

Harvey