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 - 04:37pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13781 of 13824)

"...Close to 14,000 posts now, but I don't see the debate on this forum YET conforming to the stated Header : ..."

You just haven't been around long enough, cantabb. There were 10,000+ posts that were deleted before the current 14,000 began. The topical debate has been "beat to death" long since. You're not the first to notice that this forum has little to do with the header topic lately.

Although risking being "circular" as you put it, here's a comment from last January that pretty much sums it for me. Don't bother with the link unless you want to see more context.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKfQbUHeHtB.971907@.f28e622/8897

"Thanks, bbbuck.

Kalter-rauch is right about this forum being off topic, of course.

I think the forum is off topic because the arguements against ballistic missile defense, overcome by arguements in favor more than a year ago, have now also been overcome by events. That's a double-whammy that's bound to kill on-topic discussion. The sailing equivalent would be first losing your sails then being dismasted. :-) "

This forum has hardly broached the MD topic since the WTC massacre. The referenced post is only one example of many about this forum's "wandering".

So please don't waste too much of your time telling us what we already know, cantabb. If you want the forum to be "on topic", then do something about it like make some "on topic" posts.

Maybe you don't agree with what was said in the referenced post. If not, let's hear it!

jorian319 - 05:12pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13782 of 13824)

I think this forum suffocates in fear of reprisals for disagreeing with The President of The United States. Don't hit me gisterme!!

-------------> running away

gisterme - 05:48pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13783 of 13824)

>:-0 Ahhhhhhhhh!

Et tu Bruti? You're an arsonist too jorian.? Say it aint so!

Seriously, anyone who suffocates from fear of reprisals from the President of the United States because of what they may post on this forum is probably sleeping with their pillow over their face and really needs to wake up. :-)

cantabb - 05:56pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13784 of 13824)

gisterme - 04:37pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13781 of 13782)

You just haven't been around long enough, cantabb.

Too bad, you didn't know or notice, but I've been on NYT Forums long enough to know; just Did NOT post on MD forum. But I'm somewhat familiar with its course, as I mentioned before.

There were 10,000+ posts that were deleted before the current 14,000 began. The topical debate has been "beat to death" long since.

Also familiar with the deleted and purged forums sometime ago, supposedly because of space problems.

If it's been 'beat[en] to death long', why it's taken this long to put it in the ground. Why turn it into a personal kitchen sink before that ?

You're not the first to notice that this forum has little to do with the header topic lately.

Didn't I refer to that in my very post ["Despite this and complainmts by various posters about the relevance of the content and how a "SCIENCE" forum is abused,...."] ?

You gotta start reading the posts carefully .....

So please don't waste too much of your time telling us what we already know, cantabb.

BUT you have NOT done a thing about it YET ? Particularly when you have been a "regular" with vested interest in the Forum, and are aware of its history, and knew it's been "wandering" ? Nothing that has had any noticeable effect !

But as we see it, the Forum not only continued on that road, NO participant and a defender of the Forum could/did do anything about steering it away. NOW, you try to turn on a poster (not a regular one) who points the same to you ? Strange ?

If you want the forum to be "on topic", then do something about it like make some "on topic" posts.

Don't YOU "want the forum to be 'on-topic'" ? Or, prefer it THIS way ?

I've made my suggestions, did I NOT ?

Try persuading other "regulars" who have been vociferous in defense of its ways ('wanderings'), those you think are responsible for turning this Forum into this situation. Direct your Q's to them, NOT me.

Maybe you don't agree with what was said in the referenced post. If not, let's hear it!

Review what I've said. Carefully !

(40 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense