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 - 07:14pm Sep 11, 2003 EST (# 13612 of 13617)

Robert -

"...Wright is too optimistic, in some ways, because he assumes that people have logical problems solved that they don't in fact have solved. The solving takes some sorting out - something Lchic and I are working hard to do..."

Umm, Robert, would you care to point out even one single problem that you and lchic have managed to solve in, what?...Three years?

If you were a problem solver for any private firm or even a government I'd wager that you'd have been fired long since. That's because in the real world the folks paying the tab expect results.

I mean, one really has to screw up to get fired by the US government. Just consider Bill Clinton. He was diddling his 22 year-old secretarial assistant, lied about it to a grand jury, got caught and still didn't lose his job. In my view that's a point proven.

gisterme - 07:21pm Sep 11, 2003 EST (# 13613 of 13617)

"...The Bush administration - as of now - is classifying stable end games out of existence..."

Robert, you wouldn't know a stable endgame if you were camping under it in the desert.

Aren't you the same Robert who was ranting and panting for "oscillitory solutions" just last year?

Give me and the other posters here a break and quit trying to insult our intelligence. You're only making yourself look worse.

gisterme - 07:26pm Sep 11, 2003 EST (# 13614 of 13617)

"..."Give me enough dots and liberty to connect them as I see fit, and I will generate a photo-realistic picture of gisterme!"..."

BraVo, Jorian.

Here's a portrait of gisterme that's probably about 90% accurate:

{ 8-)>

gisterme - 07:35pm Sep 11, 2003 EST (# 13615 of 13617)

"...End games are important - something I told Gisterme shortly on 9/13/2001..."

Do you consider it important to note the date that you stated something that everybody else already knew was generally important?

Sheesh. Regretably, "anal" is the about only word that comes to mind when I try to understand why you'd make such a consideration.

rshow55 - 09:08pm Sep 11, 2003 EST (# 13616 of 13617)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Jorian319 - I've said.

. "Connecting the dots" works because, when patterns are put together in different ways, and checked for internal consistency and for fit to external information workable "connections of the dots" are very sparse . So sparse that, if you keep at it - there is a very good chance that you'll make progress- and might even find exact truth in a particular situation.

Sparse, but not that sparse.

There's a corpus of posting by gisterme - not enough to provide a "picture of gisterme" but enough to constrain the possible - and with additional information - get us to closure on who gisterme is . . . if people with power actually care enough to check what's available in some ways that take some effort - and check some additional things.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm . . . http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm . . . links to a lot of information. Enough information to make clear that gisterme cares.

- But not enough to rule out a lot of different people.

For instance - there are a number of people - not ruled out by anything I actually know. Among them, peole who I'd be proud to find out were posting as gisterme .

David Sanger, for instance. Or Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Or Maureen Dowd. Or Bill Keller. Or Howell Raines. Not that I think any of these people post as gisterme - though I couldn't rule them out (without some money for statistical analysis of gisterme's corpus http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm ) . .

But if gisterme does have close connections to Bush - it seems likely that some or all of the people listed above know it.

There are other people who know who gisterme is. The same people who were able to flip my windows display online - and play "A night on bald mountain" when I was downloading a recorded speech from Bill Casey either know - or are a few steps from people who know.

If people with real power actually wanted to find out who gisterme is - they could.

I think they should.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense