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 - 03:17pm Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13808 of 13824)

gisterme - 11:36am Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13805 of 13806)

Just one more time, this detailed, this specific .....

I see you responded to my specific comments. Quoting is one thing, but I know you say you don’t want me to belabor the point, but once again, it’d be nice IF you read them carefully too, before reacting. You'll see that below. Might also help if you wish to continue to respond.

And you accuse others of school yard behavior? Give us a break.

Is it ‘school yard behavior’ to ask questions on what you meant by “Let me restate: You haven't been around long enough on this forum,” is it ‘school yard behavior’? Absolutely NOT. Name-calling and personally abusive language would be “school yard behavior,” something that we’ve seen here in the past couple of days, and I see it continuing; some still revel in that.

I can't speak for other forum regulars; Who’s asking you to do that ?

.... but why do you think they bother me? They don't. 'Been there, done that’.

Who said ‘they’ bother you ?

If you “[b]een there, done that,” why must you question others, not-regulars here, when they express their opinion on the same ? It’s just comment by non-regulars, I think, that has been bothering you !

Well, I guess you've doomed yourself to read through the other 24,000+ posts you haven't quite gotten around to yet. You can get the first 10,000+ from rshow's website. I was hoping you wouldn't need to do that; but...oh well. Come back when you're done. Please feel free to respond to the things said a few years ago if you have anything to add.

Wrong. Didn’t I mention before that I’ve been watching the forum and also mentioned attempts and complaints by others to bring it back in focus ? ‘Been there, done that !’

Umm. You tell me. If you can't then I'll probably just have to assume that they're offering their tacit agreement that the patient is dead.

THAT was a rhetorical question, you know [Did you get ANY response from ANY of the “regulars” YET ? Why NOT ?..."] ! The patient may be long dead – but it’s not yet pronounced so and given its last rites. ! I think it’s more than just a tacit agreement ( quite a few have already posted their opinions on it, and some more than once) -- except for a few dedicated regulars who not only “appreciate” the forum but want it to continue on the SAME course (to show the "appreciation").

Of course, you could always do something "on topic" (as you say) yourself. Just get back when you've gotten yourself familiar with the history of this forum. So far you've proven that you have no such familiarity. If you'd been "watching" this forum for long, you couldn't say the things you do in good concience.

What nonsense.

You keep forgetting what I DID say about this Forum – having watched it for sometime. Why do you think I have to again familiarize myself with its “history”: “Been there, done that.”

IF you say you know that the patient has been dead, no pulse etc., WHY are you surprised then at MY comments? Why I “couldn’t say the things [I] do in good concience” – things you seem to agree with, in general ? Makes NO sense !

Cantabb: "...What debate ?..."

gisterme: You've made my point. Come back when you've read the other 24,000+ posts. Once again,...you haven't been around long enough on this forum to be making statements like that.

Didn't you agree that there has been little on-topic debate ? Why do I have to go over the 24,000+ posts (and the “history”) to come to the same conclusion (as I did after watching it for sometime), the conclusion I thought you agreed with.

As to your comment that I “haven’t been around long enough on this forum to be making statements like that,” Once AGAIN, I’d have to say "...SO ? Is there a REQUIRED qualifying time limit ? Set by you ? Before one c

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense