Lust in Space (2007)
texasmonthly.com
Lust in Space (2007)
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#2> Lisa Nowak, the lovesick astronaut in the diaper
This reeks of a complete lack of basic empathy and rudimentary respect towards another human being. How can anyone write this sort of junk, leave alone publishing it?
Flagged.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#3> Lisa Nowak, the lovesick astronaut in the diaper This reeks of a complete lack of basic empathy and rudimentary respect towards another human being. How can anyone write this sort of junk, leave alone publishing it? Flagged.
The article itself however is much more compassionate towards Nowak and shows the extreme pressures she was under.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#4From [2013], or even [2007]
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#5> Lisa Nowak, the lovesick astronaut in the diaper This reeks of a complete lack of basic empathy and rudimentary respect towards another human being. How can anyone write this sort of junk, leave alone publishing it? Flagged.
While the title is cruel the article itself is clear in describing the Astronaut as a human being under unthinkable pressure and stress and does in fact show empathy for her plight.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#6Top comment is currently a Jan at the title and byline. I hope people will overlook that fault and read. It's astonishing to look back at this incident from over a decade ago, remember my reaction to it then, and compare it to my understanding now. My perceptions of NASA and my empathy for Nowak are night and day.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#7> with makeup on and her hair done, she can look pretty in a homespun, American sort of way.
Who is the intended audience for this article?
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#8> Lisa Nowak, the lovesick astronaut in the diaper This reeks of a complete lack of basic empathy and rudimentary respect towards another human being. How can anyone write this sort of junk, leave alone publishing it? Flagged.
It seems to me that you're falling into a misconception of assuming that sentence is saying something it actually isn't. As I see it, the misconception is twofold: 1. assuming an intent without contextualising it with the rest of the piece; 2. reading it assuming a 2019 interpretation fit events that happened in 2007.
As for 1, the whole article tries to show there's more to the story than that astronaut being simply an "astronut". As for 2, we have now a distance to those events to ignore how things were being reported back then (the daily noise around the issue) — that sentence being a play with the common conception of the scandal and a hint on how the article tries to go against it (or at least complicate it further, adding many emotional layers).
So my conclusion is that your assessment is not valid and thus misleading.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#9>This was accompanied by an equally peremptory demand to finish the $100 billion International Space Station—another purposeless project...
It's hard do take this article seriously when they casually assert that the ISS has no purpose.
Re: Lust in Space (2007)
#10> with makeup on and her hair done, she can look pretty in a homespun, American sort of way. Who is the intended audience for this article?
Humans who know how to read, presumably.