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.

cantabb - 08:14pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13794 of 13824)

gisterme - 06:55pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13788 of 13790)

Let me restate: You haven't been around long enough on this forum.

SO ? Is there a REQUIRED qualifying time limit ? Set by you ? Before one can Post anything ? 'Proprietorship' ?

Didn’t I mention before that I’ve been watching the forum ?

Cantabb: "...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 ?..."

Gisterme: Ask somebody that knows, cantabb.

That’s what I’ve done. In making specific suggestions to NYT. Suggestions that seem to bother you and other Forum ‘regulars’.

I made several "on topic" posts yesterday. I'm waiting patiently for some "on topic" response from you or anybody else. So far, I haven't noticed any at all.

Only “yesterday” ? Wow !

Did you get ANY response from ANY of the “regulars” YET ? Why NOT ?

In case you didn’t notice, I’ve been busy dealing with some of the “regulars” including you, about specific posts directed to ME.

I have no "vested interest" in this forum. I am acutely aware of its history and have clearly explained (I think) why it's wandering...no sails or mast.

I thought you defended the Forum as if you did. And, you have participated in its ‘wanderings’, despite your misgivings. And want to keep it alive, despite its well-recognized ‘wanderings’ and a lack-of-current-interest in the topic !

The debate has been won and the victory further exonerated by subsequent events.

What debate ? And whatever the debate, if “ won ” already and “ the victory further exonerated by subsequent events," then why not put a fork in it, and call it a day !

Nobody bothers to answer anything I say that's "on topic". That would seem to include you.

As mentioned, I, an 'ill-informed' new comer to the forum, have been busy dealing with YOU and other “regulars” on suggestions that seem to have touched a raw nerve !

But where ARE the “regulars,” vociferous defenders of the Forum ? Shouldn’t THEY be the ones you’d expect a response from.

What can I do about that??? Go into school yard mode? Start calling people names? Puuuhlease. :-)

A couple of them have been busy there already !

cantabb: "...But as we see it,..."

Gisterme: As we see it? Umm, how many of you are there, cantabb?

Had you NOT sliced that clause off for comment, you’d have noticed that it includes those ( some regulars, too) who also seem to think, as I said “ the Forum not only continued on that road, NO participant and a defender of the Forum could/did do anything about steering it away.” The statement you comment on below.

Well, you just said that before and I gave you my answer. Obviously the NYT doesn't intend to bury this forum for reasons unknown to us both. So What would you suggest?

Because public complaints by me and several others (included reported e-mails), one of the assumptions was that NYT was NOT interested in taking any action on the complaints made. You’ve seen MY suggestions, haven’t you ?

Turn on a poster? Do you mean you? What are you talking about? How have I turned on you? You're the newcomer here not Fred, jorian, bbbuck or rshow and you'll be especially welcome if you can come up with anything "on topic" to post...or even simply respond to my own posts from yesterday.

Review your posts in response to my suggestions ! And The subsequent discussion.

Let me get this right: Since the “regulars” would NOT engage with on your “on topic” post(s), YOU want an 'ill-informed' new comer to do that instead ? And the way you thought best was to start engaging me on the matters on the validity/usefulness/appriopriateness of my suggestions ..

"...Strange ?” That you would become so defensive so quickly, cantabb? Yes it is.

cantabb - 08:15pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13795 of 13824)

gisterme - 06:55pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13788 of 13790)

cont'd with overlap....

"...Strange ?” That you would become so defensive so quickly, cantabb? Yes it is.

That’s NOT being defensive. That’s commenting on what’s observed.

You've made your complaints. I haven't noticed many suggestions. So is your modus operandi "do as I say and not as I do", cantabb?

Again, READ it carefully. Here again from my first post here: “My (unsolicited) suggestion to NYT is (though I doubt if this will be considered, much less followed):”

You haven't said anything at all that disagrees with what I said in the previously referneced post. The MD topic has shown no pulse for some time. A dead heart won't respond to even the fanciest pacemaker.

IF there’s NO disagreement, then what’s the purpose of your continuing debate with me on my suggestions, my comments, etc ? Comments in my FIRST post did include, as I reminded before, of previous complaints by various posters (see IF it covers your referenced link or not).

IF the MD “has shown no pulse for some time. A dead heart won't respond to even the fanciest pacemaker,” why NOT give the needed burial, instead of asking me or someone to do what “even the fanciest pacemaker” could not do: to perform a miracle.

Signs are CLEAR. See IF you can add anything to my 2 suggestions !

And, FINALLY, I think yet another rehash is not going to be any more productive.

(29 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense