A thread devoted to solving the world's most longstanding and intractable socio-technical problems A big effort by The New York Times and others. . .

Stepping, by invitation, into the NYT- Science - Missile Defence (MD) Thread, I was naively unaware that it would dominate my life for the next 36 months.

There were 265 postings on the thread before my first - and 29,367 thereafter - ( about 120 1 1/2 notebooks of text ) - about 40% by me, 20% by my partner lchic , and the rest by distinguished anonymous posters.

Some of the anonymous posters are distinguished indeed - by the quality of their writing, and by their role as "stand ins" for the New York Times reportorial community, for the Bush administration, and for the Putin administration of Russia.

Perhaps 20% of the total text on the thread involves missile defense - the rest involves journalistic procedure, nuclear disarmament, international negotiation, and new ways of achieving stable, prosperous cooperations between people and nations.

Over three years and more, the TIMES has given me a degree of (unconventional, but real and expensive) support that seems to exceed the support they have given any other outsider. I've tried to justify the attention and the cost.

Big papers like the Guardian and the NYT are pushing the limits of what they can do, excellent as they are - within their formats. I believe that the MD thread was supported as it was as an experimental effort to see what additional initiatives, broader cooperation - and, eventually perhaps special funding might achieve.

MD was an exciting place to be.

MD was a ( mind ) challenging place to be.

Discussion was abreast ( on a par ) or ahead of available news print output.

Discussion was lively, to date, and often ahead of 'the news.'

I think the work on the MD thread made the world a safer and more understandable place.

I've been grateful for the MD thread for personal reasons, as well. When I first went onto the MD board - I was so tied up with security problems that I could only talk. Not act. I was in an extremely awkward situation - and my involvement with the NYT was awkward for the Times, as well as for me. Now, though much is up in the air - a lot has been clarified in the course of writing and reading more than ten million words of text.

Good text. If you sample it - you'll see. I tried to write well - and wrote well enough that, somehow, the NYT let me keep posting. But lchic writes superbly - and has wonderful references any journalist would be proud of. And most of the other posters write (and think) very well, too.

Problems that the human race needs solved may be soluble, that were not before. I believe the MD thread has already changed the English language - providing new meaning to the phrase "connecting the dots" and has stimulated the thinking of diplomats and journalists - especially journalists at The New York Times. I've been honored to have had the chance to work for that.

Whether you wish to "call me Ishmael" http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html - and consider some stories I've told on the MD thread a literary exercise - or believe that I was "Eisenhower's kid" on certain analytical jobs, and have worked hard since - the text of the Missile Defense thread is as good as it is. ( see below ).

Here's language from a letter I wrote Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. on 26 October, 2003:

Someday At Christmas by Stevie Wonder http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/xmas/97xmas.html talks about hope.

We need to learn how to achieve Peace on Earth http://www.mrshowalter.net/psychwar/Peace%20on%20Earth.htm

Some careful, unsentimental, imperfect people have some technical things to work out. A lot of effort in that direction went on in the 120 notebooks of text in the MD thread. Good text.

I'm trying now to move from theory - and extensive discussion - to condensation, action and effectiveness, and will refer to work on this thread again and again as my life goes on.

I'm hoping that the archiving and summarization at http://www.mrshowalter.net/ will be useful, and the rough summary and associated links below will be useful and interesting to others.



Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

rshow55 - (# 17626 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17626.htm

My involvement with the New York Times Missile Defense board started with discussion about nuclear weapons on the old NYT Favorite Poetry board.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet_6222_Sep21_2000_PoetryAbtNks.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet6229_Set22_2000_SeeNukes_DowrnInOrder.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet6237_Sep23_2000_SeeWillyNilly.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet6242_MRSnWillyNilly.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet_6250_SeeLunarchick.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/FavPoet_6259_Sep24_2000_KateSaysGoToMD.htm ends with this:

. kate_nyt - 01:27pm Sep 24, 2000 EST (#6264 of 6739) Community Producer, NYTimes.com

My involvement with the Missile Defense thread began on a Monday, at 07:32am Sep 25, 2000 EST (#266) Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, this year or next year. What would have to happen? rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am . For the rest of that day, I had a discussion with "becq," who I have often thought might have been President Clinton,

ending at #304, which is worth reading in itself ... rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md304.htm

I was hoping to get off the NYT MD board then.

Since that time there has been more than 28,000 postings on the NYT MD board.

Based on things discussed in http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/MD8393.HTM and some other things that were happening to me - it didn't seem certain - but it also didn't seem far-fetched - that becq might be Clinton - or somebody close to him.

Perhaps, at that time - I had a far-fetched view of how close the NYT and the US government actually were.

Though that view seemed reasonable then, and it doesn't seem far-fetched now, either.

Questions of identity on the NYT MD board are matters of dispute ( though there may be ways to get the answers ) but identity of just one of a number of posters might cast a lot of light on the probable identity of the others. August 30, 2003 I did a thread The NYT Missile Defense Forum, and coordinated Guardian Talk fora, form a large, coordinated corpus , set out in http://www.mrshowalter.net/BigDirectory.htm ( 1.25 meg) which is a sequential list of links to the NYT Missile Defense Forum from its beginning, combined with sequential lists of two distinguished anonymous posters to the thread, Almarst and Gisterme . This was a list of links - which would take 259 pages to print. It was available for statistical sampling, to provide a sense of how big the MD corpus was in by August.

There were more than 4000 postings between August 30 and Nov 14, 2003, when the MD thread closed. That thread, The NYT Missile Defense Forum, and coordinated Guardian Talk fora, form a large, coordinated corpus , began as follows.

Posts by Almarst are set out and posted separately at http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Almarst.htm - a list of links which would take 130 pages to print.

Posts by Gisterme are set out and posted separately at http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm - which is a 32 page list of links.

I've long believed that gisterme was very closely connected to GWB - and that many of the postings probably have been by Bush himself. That's not proved. With journalistic effort, I think it could be, and think the story might be worthy of journalistic attention.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

The NYT MD board may be a humble thing - but the political implications of identifying gisterme widely might cast a longer shadow. Especially when the things gisterme said in the course of decision making about Iraq are traced against what was said and done publicly by the Bush administration, and by the media.

Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

Here is my last post on NYT - Science - Missile Defense Forum before it closed. When the thread closed, and was archived (so far) there were 17695 posts. Sometime thereafter, 196 postings, most or all mine, were removed. All were after post 16685 - the last eight days of my postings. Here is my last posting, now deleted:

17681 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17681.htm

You Can't Always Get What You Want Lyrics by the Rolling Stones http://www.lyricsdomain.com/lyrics/30225/

But sometimes, you can.

There's been plenty hoped for in the past, and worked for, that has been realized. People working together, and working out problems, can accomplish far more than they they could accomplish alone. That's a consistent pattern. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Kline_ExtFactors.htm

There are good reasons to cooperate rather than fight. But fighting is the logically usual form - especially when people are quite different. Cooperations are generally unstable. We need to know how to stabilize them better, more reliably, more systematically, than we have.

Here's language from my letter to an important person on 26 October.

A while ago, after a phone call, I felt all that was very close. It has slipped away. Since that time, there have been missteps, stasis, unnecessary losses, and a great deal of posting . . . .

But we did get close, I thought, to a win-win solution. Maybe, later, people will figure out how to make them. I failed this time. But maybe there's hope.

Someday At Christmas by Stevie Wonder http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/xmas/97xmas.html talks about hope. Peace on Earth.

Peace on Earth http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/25/opinion/25WED1.html http://www.mrshowalter.net/psychwar/Peace%20on%20Earth.htmPeace on Earth is a masterpiece - one I hope is read and reread for many years. It moved me a great deal, I'll be rereading it - and feel these lines fit here:

Some careful, unsentimental, imperfect people have some technical things to work out. Looks possible to me.

- - - -

I think maybe there is hope, and maybe, for the NYT institution as it is, and the people as they are, the NYT has done just as well as they possibly could by me - for now - and for themselves and the others they are responsible for - for now. We know a lot about what certain patterns of cooperation might look like. They haven't been agreed to - and they can't and shouldn't be - because they are, as yet, not solidly based enough - not stable and sustainable enough. But we know what some things would take - and each side knows a lot about the other side's reservations. And each side has put out a lot of effort.

- - - -

Since "cantabb" came on the MD board - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Cantabb_Srch_to10_4.htm not so long after I posted http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm - and not long after Colin Powell paid a personal visit to the NYT, there have been about 4000 postings - in an industrial strength, professionally staffed flame war, mingled with detailed discussions that might be called negotiations.

Since October 26th, when I sent this note to Arthur O. Sulzberger 17491-2 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17491.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17492.htm there were about 2000 postings - many with characteristics of negotiations coming to closure - but without agreement - the kind of chatter that coming into focus takes.

When I first went onto the MD board - I was so tied up with security problems that I could only talk. Not act. I was in an extremely awkward situation - and my involvement with the NYT was awkward for the Times, as well as for me. Now, though much is up in the air - a lot has been clarified in the course of writing and reading more than ten million words of text.

Here's a proposal that's been discussed since 2001 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6400.htm

In 2001 I could only talk about it - now, I'm intending to actually get it done , if I can. Or try to. Or try to do other useful things.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/SolarProjTalk17000s.htm deals with recent conversations about actually getting big projects done - especially mine. It included a "corrupt" proposal from me.

17589-90 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17589.htm

I intend to offer exactly the same deal, from the point of view of fairness, for the Guardian-Observer's consideration. I'd be grateful if Guardian people will talk to me - using their own identities - as NYT people have been extremely reluctant to do.

At this point, "conversations" and "negotiations" are deniable - maybe nonexistent. Nobody's agreed to a damn thing. About anything. But there's been a lot of talking.

Everybody has worked on the NYT thread, and here, out of the goodness of their heart - out of interest - and in the public interest. All the same, for very large, inherently complex dealmaking to be possible, it has to be possible to treat people fairly, as well - and to decently accomodate the needs of common provision and efficiency.

Solar Energy Proposal - with references 13039 http://www.mrshowater.net/a_new_13000s/13039.htm

13041 http://www.mrshowater.net/a_new_13000s/13041.htm

13042 http://www.mrshowater.net/a_new_13000s/13042.htm

My web site http://www.mrshowalter.net/

Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

rshow55 - 11:07am Oct 30, 2003 EST (# 15926

China and North Korea Agree on More Nuclear Program Talks by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 30, 2003

Sometimes, there are situations where there is no technical alternative to discussions that block out a system of steps - well enough balanced - that are then implemented "simultaneously" - really sequentially in ways that are very tightly coupled.

With different transactions, which are unequal in opposite ways ( one or more very much to the advantage of one side - one or more very much to the advantage of the other) agreed to in a linked system.

Most workable agreements in sociotechnical systems are like that.

If discussion enough for that is barred - stable agreements ( often any agreements ) are classified out of existence for people who are different enough or do not like each other.

Stable systems of agreements can involve a lot of "agreements to disagree" - if the rules are clear .

15315 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15314.htm

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated. Though it isn't easy to find those accomodations. But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

We need to Iearn how to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively - and when it matters enough, we need to learn how to agree about facts. Even when we happen to hate each other - even when we have reasons to hate each other. It is easy to use words as weapons to keep that from happening.

The NYT MD thread itself is a very clear, crossreferenced illustration of those principles.

For some jobs, there is no alternative to discussions face to face - with contact long enough so that people get their anger and their fear under control - figure out what each side really wants - and work out relationships that look good and stable, on balance, to both sides - and that can actually be made to work.

If that's not possible - fights are inevitable - and the parties "might as well go ahead and fight."

A lot has happened since I sent this postcard. But nothing that has given me any reason to doubt what it says - or doubt that what it says needs to be learned. http://www.mrshowalter.net/LtToSenateStffrWSulzbergerNoteXd.html

To craft agreements that are stable - there are technical things to be sorted out - and it seems to me that we're well on our way to getting the principles clearer.

I deeply appreciate the chance I've been given to post on NYT and Guardian Talk threads, - and I'll try my best, as I have in the past, to act in a way that "the average reader of The New York Times" and the "average reader of the Guardian Observer" would actually approve of.

I'm hopeful that the work the lchic and I have done here will be worthwhile, both for ourselves, and for the world, and think it may happen.

Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

A major reason why I've done these postings, and thought them justified, goes to the center of our democracy. After more than fifty years dominated by psychological warfare, accumulated deceptions, and an accumulation of written and unwritten accomodations for the deceptions, it has become nearly impossible to check anything at all that someone in power wants concealed.

My interactions with the NYT since 1999 illlustrate this - and my efforts to deal with it - personally, and more generally, with indispensible help from lchic since the middle of 2000.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html cites a statement I made at lchic's request on Jun 26, 2001

That other story has been fleshed out since - is that I was commandeered, as a very young man, in 1967, and assigned to work on exception handling patterns that neither the formal intelligence apparatus, nor the private sector as it was, nor the academic community could handle - in ways that I thought then, and still think, made sense in the overall national interest - and in the interest of our capitalistic system, our political system - and the academy.

There are complications to the story, but a great deal of it can be checked, though I have no pictures of me standing beside Casey or Eisenhower - ( for the same reasons that I don't expect Mimi Beardsley to have pictures with Kennedy - though she may have them ). Whether you happen to "call me Ishmael" or happen to believe my story - I think things are worth checking - and think I've long deserved a face-to-face hearing. I have been consistently claiming that I had information that I felt I had to deliver face to face, after establishing some rapport. That didn't seem so difficult or unreasonable back then - or now. But it has been difficult. It has been so difficult that I think journalists, and responsible citizens, should be interested.

Trying Not to leak

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15452.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15631c.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16409.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16411.htm

On the validity of my story, or my role as "Ishmael"

The question of whether or not I'm "Ishmael" has been discussed on the MD thread from time to time, and I believe that NYT people have noticed that discussion.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17654.htm includes this from bluestar23 - 12:18am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17657

The point has been repeated, and has been worth repeating - because it has been so awkward for the NYT to check the point, or admit that they have checked it. The difficulties involved say a good deal, I think, about both the freedom and the competence of journalistic usages today. The "Ishmael" line is cited in these links to the NYT MD board:

June 26, 2001: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6057.htm

Sep 5, 2001: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8511.htm

Jan 25, 2002: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11038.htm

Ap 30, 2002: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1899.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2101.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2476_toCIA.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2629b.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2683.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2684.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2812.htm

Jul 21, 2002: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3207new.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3220.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3322new.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3323NewNew.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3347.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3481fmAug4.htm

Oct 3, 2002 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4742.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4745aa.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4746.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4814.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4926.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5074.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5402.htm

December 2002: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6482.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6585.htm

March 26, 2003: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_10000s/10540.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_10000s/10676.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12281NewNew.htm

June 2, 2003: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13161.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13303.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13379.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13525.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13559.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13680.htm

Oct 2003: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15244.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15319.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15321.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15326.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15631.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15631c.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15631_new.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15647.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16171.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16188.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16335.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16342.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16409.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16411.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16414.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16485.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16496.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16610.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16648.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16652.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_16000s/16673.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17637.htm includes this on November 14:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17654.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_17000s/17659.htm
Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

Psychwarfare, Casablanca, and Terror - Guardian Talk Thread http://www.mrshowalter.net/Psychwar1_Recent.htm was started one day after my first posting on the MD board - and links in it (also linked in other threads) form a selection of the posts I thought most important to emphasize, going along. http://www.mrshowalter.net/psychwar/

Robert Showalter - (# )  | 

Here's language from my letter to an important person on 26 October.

A while ago, after a phone call, I felt all that was very close. It has slipped away. Since that time, there have been missteps, stasis, unnecessary losses, and a great deal of posting . . . .

But we did get close, I thought, to a win-win solution. Maybe, later, people will figure out how to make them. I failed this time. But maybe there's hope.

Someday At Christmas by Stevie Wonder http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/xmas/97xmas.html talks about hope. Peace on Earth.

Peace on Earth http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/25/opinion/25WED1.html http://www.mrshowalter.net/psychwar/Peace%20on%20Earth.htm is a masterpiece - one I hope is read and reread for many years. It moved me a great deal, I'll be rereading it - and feel these lines fit here:

Some careful, unsentimental, imperfect people have some technical things to work out. Looks possible to me.

I'm trying to move from to a less passive role - and I deeply appreciate the chance I've been given to post here.

I'm hoping that the archiving and summarization at http://www.mrshowalter.net/ will be useful.