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.

fredmoore - 12:59am Aug 14, 2003 EST (# 13295 of 13298)

Robert,

Don't let your feelings be hurt here ... hey I didn't when you impied that I knew a dingo could be anything other than an Aussie bush dog.

This board is exploring truth ... nicely, in a prototypical way and to that end alone I will answer your question.

Trust comes from the Old Norse word 'traust' meaning strong. Therein lies the Gravitas of the word and also your major failing. It is the reason you fail to garner the trust of this forum, or anyone else for that matter.

To show strength you would need to:

1. Ditch your apocryphal anachronisms (Eisenhower, Casey etc) and stand square behind original ideas of your own.

2. Learn to ask questions, not just rhetorical ones, impossible ones or those not addresed to a forum member. Your question that spawned this reply was a step in the right direction.

3.Additionally you would need to be able to 'yield and modify' when your ideas are shown to be wrong. One recent example of this: it is a thermodynamic certainty that towed PV arrays would not cut the necessary 10 year MTBF due to the high Entropic (oceans are entropy sinks) properties of the oceans at equatorial solstaces or any other point. Yet you are not strong enough to adapt your ideas to this and progress.

I think you can cut it and be trusted too ... if you ditch your psychological mummy and daddy ... perhaps the real Eisenhower and Casey in your life.

An old saying: Crutches are fine when you have a broken leg but they are no damn good if you intend to run a marathon. And Missile Defence is definitely the mother of all marathons.

gisterme - 01:52am Aug 14, 2003 EST (# 13296 of 13298)

rshow55 - 06:43am Aug 13, 2003 EST (# 13288 of ...)

You quoted Bertotdt Brecht's essay, WRITING THE TRUTH, FIVE DIFFICULTIES:

"..." It takes courage to say that the good were defeated not because they were good, but because they were weak."

Then drew from that:

When the truth is too weak, we have to ask why?..."

Robert your skills at twisting statements out of context seem to be deteriorating. Even an idiot could understand that your statement has nothing to do with Brecht's and certainly doesn't follow from it by any sane form of logic.

Truthful people being weak says nothing about the strength of the truth itself. No more than a claim that untruthful people being strong makes untruth strong.

You try so desperately to "negotiate" that which is not negotiable. No wonder you never seem to get anywhere.

gisterme - 02:45am Aug 14, 2003 EST (# 13297 of 13298)

rshow55 - 04:58pm Aug 13, 2003 EST (# 13292 of ...)

"...What does the term mean - how many different things does "trust" mean - what ought "trust" to mean here?..."

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: trust

Pronunciation: 'tr&st

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE

Date: 13th century

1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something...

Trust only means one thing in the context we're talking about, Robert, and that's it. If you had a working BS meter, you might know. You characterize individuals, as you well should; but then you glom them all together as "this board" as if you have no cabability of believing your own instincts...as if you can't think of them as individuals to be dealt with as such. In fact, I think that's the case. It's a shame.

"...gisterme , who I've also sometimes mistaken for a ranking personage, though he's assured me I'm wrong about that, and sometimes I believe him - ..."

Wonder to yourself, Robert: "why sometimes and not other times?"

"...I switch back and forth..."

I have always maintained that I am not a government official or employee of any kind. I have never switched that position. That you can check. I'll also tell you straight up (again) that I have always been truthful with you, Robert. Accept that on faith for just a moment and then ask yourself "that being the case, and he's provably never switched back and forth...why would I switch back and forth?". The answer, if you're honest with yourself might be very revealing. I think the problem might be that you don't even trust yourself. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising since you apparently didn't even know what trust means. Now you know.

"...If gisterme does not have high government connections -- and is not speaking with authority --- gisterme has often written to convey a sense that those connections exist. --"

I have no government connections at any level and have never even thought about writing with the intent to convey authority or imply non-existant connections. I do make sure that I'm truthful about statements I make. If I'm not sure either I'll say so or won't say anything. I think you're confusing that (apparantly alien to you) truthful attitude for "speaking with authority". So maybe at some level you do detect truthfulness. You just don't have a clue about how to interpret it.

I do express my opinions as such and speculation as such and feelings as such. If those come across to you with a sense of authority then you should ask yourself "Why?".

One does not need high government connections to speak with authority, Robert. One only needs the confidence that comes from being reasonably knowledgeable and always truthful. I can honestly say that on this forum (and the others I've posted on) I've always done that. To do so is because of hard-learned lessons, lessons learned long before I ever posted on any web forum.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense