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.

jorian319 - 02:49pm Aug 5, 2003 EST (# 13246 of 13267)

If you follow this board...

I hate to have to be the bearer of bad news, Robert, but - as Will, Fred, Bbbuck, Gisterme and I have already pointed out, NOBODY "FOLLOWS" THIS BOARD! ...mainly because it doesn't go anywhere!

fredmoore - 07:00pm Aug 5, 2003 EST (# 13247 of 13267)

Jorian,,

"NOBODY "FOLLOWS" THIS BOARD! ...mainly because it doesn't go anywhere! "

Yeah .. but we have a lot of FUN getting to nowhere. At least I do.

Besides, Robert has just made some major concessions:

"" Nobody can do everything - or conflicting things at the same time.

This thread has been an experiment - and I think, on balance, worth the effort of the people involved. But what fits it well for some purposes makes it useless for others.

Closure, on anything that counts, has to happen elsewhere (committees, opinion polls, experiments?) , though prototyping of what closure would take can sometime be modelled in a format like this one. ""

Who knows, Nelson (Mandella) may be having a big chuckle right now!

Get with the plan .... KAEP and F.B.I. my man!

fredmoore - 07:15pm Aug 5, 2003 EST (# 13248 of 13267)

Wisely the owl

watches

waits

deliberates

Swoops

Takes

Makes

eggs, fertilise

notarise

watch them hatch

feed them, proselytise

watch them grow

enraptored batch.

FM1234

gisterme - 09:53pm Aug 5, 2003 EST (# 13249 of 13267)

Fred -

"...Besides, Robert has just made some major concessions:

Absolutely right! I'll repeat them again from:

rshow55 - 02:29pm Aug 5, 2003 EST (# 13244 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?16@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133483@.f28e622/14929

"...Nobody can do everything - or conflicting things at the same time..."

That's always been self evident.

"...This thread has been an experiment -

That's been asserted and denied before on this forum, a couple of years ago I think.

"...and I think, on balance, worth the effort of the people involved..."

I've enjoyed participating despite (or perhaps because of) the occasional animosity.

"...But what fits it well for some purposes makes it useless for others..."

Just like a claw hammer.

...Closure, on anything that counts, has to happen elsewhere (committees, opinion polls, experiments?) ,..."

No kidding? You mean folks like elected representatives, diplomats and ultimately heads of state have to make the decisions that steer world affairs...instead of web posters? Say it aint so!

"...though prototyping of what closure would take can sometime be modelled in a format like this one..."

That's the part that doesn't seem obvious to me; but it's usually wiser to never say never.

At any rate, these concessions seem to be a sort of closure in themselves.

Thank you, Robert!

wrcooper - 12:24am Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13250 of 13267)

Showalter

You said you thought I had to be responsible for what I wrote. You're right. I am. I take full responsibility for everything I've written in this forum. Now what?

For the record, I've always been truthful. In the satirical post you showed me that I had written, I probably never imagined you'd take it seriously. It was hyperbolic and heavily nuanced with sarcasm--not exactly the "smoking gun" you were looking for to prove I was George Johnson. I apologized for teasing you that way, and there's an end of it.

What you haven't done is openly and humbly admitted your error in insisting I was Johnson and in accusing me of lying about my identity. I think it is highly revealing that you fail to do so. Instead of taking "responsibility" for your bullying and ad hominem, you piously retreat, assuring us all that you'll get around to replying, to offering a full explanation...but you never do. That's been your pattern. When the going gets tough, you hightail it for the woods and hide out in delay until time passes and memory fades regarding your promises.

So, here are the statements I take responsibility for:

• You're intellectually dishonest;

• You're psychologically several leagues off kilter--paranoid and grandiose and delusional;

• You're prolix, repetitious and boring.

Does that sum it up for you?

Truth is, you piss me off. I don't treat people in the coarse and insulting way you've treated me and others in this forum. It's easy enough to laugh at you--at anybody who would make the outrageous claims you do--but I guess I take you seriously, because I felt wounded by how you sanctimoniously and rudely repaid my early kindnesses to you. As gisterme would put it, I have a thin skin. I haven't gotten over it. I still rankle when I think about it. Basically, Robert , I used to think you were probably a nice guy who was troubled and needed a good hug; now I just think you suck.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense