New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (13618 previous messages)

wrcooper - 12:35am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13619 of 13624)

gisterme

Well, he still won't believe you. You're being a VIP is necessary to maintaining his egotistical fantasy. I understand perfectly why you won't go any farther in revealing personal information to Showalter. That's a sensible precaution. I wasn't so sensible, but I actually am glad now I did meet with him. As I've said, he struck me as a much saner person in person than he does on the board. Go figure.

Anyway, you're leaving his fantasy intact, I'm afraid. He'll say something like, "I don't know if gisterme is Bush or closely connected with Bush, but there is reason enough to suspect he may be, and it should be checked." We're right back at square one.

Showalter

I've got an idea. Email some people at the CIA and the Pentagon and tell them all about the "Missile Defense" board and send them samples of your posts. Ask them to stop by and monitor it. Tell them to use a special moniker, say, IndiaAlphaMike1 or something. Then you'd know, because you had given them the secret handshake to identify themselves. If they bit, that would indeed be gratifying for you.

Well, this has been fun, kids. But it's farther out than Pluto. Cuckoo Cachoo.

gisterme - 12:57am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13620 of 13624)

"...As I've said, he [Showalter] struck me as a much saner person in person than he does on the board. Go figure..."

I'm sincerely glad to hear that, Will. I do respect your opinion.

You fear that I'm leaving Bob's fantasy intact...perhaps I am. However, I don't think there's much I could to to destroy it. After all, Robert is free to deny whatever he wants in order to "maintain the chain". He's more of a "chain maintainer" than a "chain breaker".

I think I'm out too.

wrcooper - 09:22am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13621 of 13624)

gisterme,

You wrote:

I think I'm out too.

Good move. See ya in the other forums.

rshow55 - 10:06am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13622 of 13624)
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.

Gisterme: " He's more of a "chain maintainer" than a "chain breaker". "

That's intended.

Chain breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

Explosives aren't funny, but they're funny things Fizzles so easy -- slow burns so easy then BANG ! - if things happen to be right try to stop the detonation when it comes.

. . . .

When everything's right, chains branch. nothing stops them, shock wave builds Bango!

Just a different activation event, and chains may break, and if enough break just a fizzle.

If fewer break, but the shock wave never builds, you have a deflagration - a slow burn, that you could warm coffee with, if you wanted to get that close, and could stand the fumes.

- - - -

" The long and the short of it is - you need both long and short. From the long, quite often, the short condenses."

I believe that some useful condensations have occurred on the NYT Missile Defense thread, and that more will.

Including some simple exemplars that lchic and I have worked to focus - that might be usefully taught to four or five year olds. Kids and their parents might be better if they learned one of lchic's poems http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.neAWbQoBFlB.8684444@.f28e622/3745 . And in a little while, that poem might be learned with a small addition http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.neAWbQoBFlB.8684444@.f28e622/3784 .

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense