New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

gisterme - 07:41pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11265 of 11295)

rshow55 2/5/02 6:22am "... "...And then, the familiar defense is "trust me." . . . "Don't ask questions."..."

Your modus operandi described in a nutshell, Robert! Thanks. Anybody can ask questions; but you're the one who won't answer questions. You're the one who asks a couple of oddball questions, draws a hairbrained conclusion from the questions (without them being answered) and then says "trust these conclulsions". These are right answers! Heh heh. And you seem to try as hard as you can to ask questions that can't be answered, presumably so your baseless conclusions can't be challenged. Whew!

"...Issues of trust and believing "good people" in the sense of not checking their facts, have been the subject of this board pretty often-- often central to the arguments of gisterme and Mazza."

Well, Robert you've finally said something that's true, even though you intend it to be misleading...You're the one who won't check facts. I could post probably a half dozen links where I've given you specific provable checkable anaylsis and you won't reply with anything but denial, evasion or accusation. I don't ask you to believe or trust me I just ask you to check. What do you do? you reply with an accusation that I and others are doing the very thing that in fact it's you who's doing it instead. What kind of person are you, Robert? Should I post the links? I will if you say so. It's your denial of facts that have caused all this to be a frequent topic on this board and once again you insist on more of the same.

It's ironic, Robert, that you were the one who used to rant about checking when you thought there wasn't anybody around savvy enough to do so. That all turned out to be BS didn't it? Especially when checkable evidence was presented to you to answer the questions you assumed couldn't be answered. Suddenly when Lou and I say "check it Robert" you say "They say 'trust us'." What could be farther from the truth? The fact is that you've proven yourself to be unworty of the effort it takes for others to present you with checkable facts. I know you wish we'd just quit; but, oh well, I'm in it for the laughs. :-)

I am sincerely worried about you, Robert. You're making youself look corrupt.

mazza9 - 07:41pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11266 of 11295)
Louis Mazza

lchic:

I object! You shouldn't be puttin' words in my mouth.

Come to think of it.....

rshow55 - 07:42pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11267 of 11295)

I'm taking some time, and doing some other things. But also spending time wondering -- is it possible that gisterme thinks the arguments in
MD11246 gisterme 2/4/02 11:17pm and MD11253 gisterme 2/5/02 12:29am
are technically valid? Is it possible that (s)he thinks (s)he's being honest?

It is taking me some time to scratch my head about that.

On the question -- "adaptive to what - - - with respect to what . . ?
The answer is that there is no answer. There is no feedback loop that even exists to target (much less one that has remotely the resolution needed, even for infinite time.)

The engineers involved have to know this - and if they don't -- that's scary, in a sense, but no doubt comforting to Chinese, or Russians.

Perhaps the real question is something else?

I'm having to ponder that "perhaps." . . . and take my time about it.

gisterme - 07:45pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11268 of 11295)

rshow55 2/5/02 10:37am

"...Would you like to comment on "intentional deceptions" of my own, for balance?..."

Just did, Robert. Years worth.

rshow55 - 07:53pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11269 of 11295)

Working through your deceptions, gisterme , takes a lot of doing, because there are so many.

gisterme , for serious checking, a shouting match between us isn't the way. We are moving toward closure. But as important as this topic is, some checking procedures, that don't trust either one of us, might be useful.

MD11045 rshow55 1/25/02 2:34pm MD10764 rshow55 1/14/02 7:36pm

I'll be dealing with some of your points tomorrow - - - but I'll take some time -- because the subject matter is important, and I'd like to keep my temper under firm control.

gisterme - 08:06pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11270 of 11295)

rshow55 2/5/02 7:42pm

"...Is it possible that (s)he thinks (s)he's being honest?..."

Wouldn't say it if I didn't think it was honest, Robert. That's a big difference between me and you.

"...On the question -- "adaptive to what - - - with respect to what . . ?

More denail, Robert. The answer in the referenced post was made clear enough that even a fifth-grader could understand it not to mention an auto mechanic.

But since you've requested comments on your dishonesty, Robert the "gender dithering" of your question is another example of your dishonesty...

gisterme 6/12/01 12:46pm

gisterme 9/13/01 10:44pm

"That's just healty distrust, Gisterme!" you say? I doubt that anybody else would say that. I think you presume that everybody else is dishonest because you want them to be more like you. That way you don't feel so isolated. I'll tell you the reason that you're isolated, Robert. It is because of distrust. That's an absence of faith. Where there is not faith there is not trust and where there is not trust there reside in its place loneliness, jealousy, bitterness, dishonesty, hatred...all the things that lead to corruption and misery.

(25 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense