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 - 03:19pm Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13809 of 13824)

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

continued with overlap....

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 can Post anything ? 'Proprietorship' ? ..."

How ridiculous !

Aren’t you trying to be condescending here, again ? And, why such knee-jerk reactions? I must be touching a pretty raw nerve !

I presume you mean "stick a fork in it and call it done".

Yes, more colloquially. You got it, didn’t you? THIS is what I’d call being ‘pedantic’ !

Naa. You're the one who seems to have a frayed nerve. 'Hope it's not you're last one.

Look at what my ONE simple post DID elicit ? Can’t you see where the frayed nerves really are, and who’s taking my comments personally ?

cantabb: "...Because public complaints by me and several others (included reported e-mails) [emphasis now added]

gisterme: Oh? Then you know a lot more than I do if you get reports of complaints about this forum. So why are you asking me? Note “reported e-mails” !

Don’t you recall that a few regulars mentioned sending complaints by e-mails ? NOT as familiar with “history” as you claim to be, are you ? Why are you surprised that some one MAY “know a lot more than [you] do” ? Not possible, you think ?

Well, cantabb, whether or not I might agree with the NYT's point of view on any particular topic, I must respect their right to hold and express their own point of view.

Didn’t we both agree on that: we don’t know why NYT continues this forum, and its ‘wanderings’ ? Sure, IF they want to put up with what I or some one else see the current course as abuse of privilege offered, they sure can do that. Their paper!

Are we getting back to the "free speech in America" thing here?

You miss the point ! And, a red herring !

[Btw, I hate to go off tangent on your red herring, but IF I were to have the power to force NYT to shut the forum down because I don’t like it, then it’d be a violation of their free speech. IF NYT were to revoke the posting privilege of any poster (because of violations of their policy), am sure they can do it ( they do it all the time), and that’s not really a violation of that poster’s free speech: More like preventinmg abuse of privilege.

I didn't raise THIS here as that. [In my exchange on 'Science in the News', a 'regular' on this forum was the one who was mistaken on an entirely diufferent subject -- You've enough problerms as is, sticking to the issues on THIS forum, weithout having to insert extraneous issues].

Well, once again, just complaints so far. And?

I can’t help if you’re unwilling to pay attention. See this, again:

“1. Move it to a political group of forums [if interested THAT much in continuing it). Spare the "Science Forums." 2. Shut it down. And put NYT Forum space to BETTER use.” These WERE “My (unsolicited) suggestion to NYT” [along with the caveat on their accepting them].

My “complaint” was mentioned, BEFORE my suggestions.

The "regulars" already know the patient is dead.

IF they know it ‘already’, what’re you objecting to then ? You don’t want it dead [“in denial” as I mentioned] ? You want to resurrect it [hoping for a ‘miracle’] ? And, you’re are asking ME [the ill-informed: NOT familiar with the history; not around here long enough] to perform a “miracle” ?

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post. You even quoted it for your response: See again, "...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 ?..." cantabb

Okay. I'll just ignore

cantabb - 03:19pm Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13810 of 13824)

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

continued with overlap....

Okay. I'll just ignore you from now on too unless you want to do something besides whine.

I just made ONE post, and all I've seen since then, is what you should call "whining" -- NOT my ONE short post [Sept 17], in which, my very first here, I not only commented on the history and the current status of the Forum, but also offered my suggestions. ALL in one short post !

You CAN “ignore.” That’s YOUR choice. My posting are NOT required reading, you know ! In case you didn’t know.

gisterme - 11:37am Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13806 of 13806)

One more thing. If you think you can accomplish something here by endless repetition you've definately come to the wrong place. There's probably no place you can go on the web, in the world, solar system, galaxy or universe …

My specific comments to specific reaction to my FIRST post [Sept 17] for the past 2-3 days: NOT “endless repetition.” NOT even a faint hint of it, compared to what you have HAD for the past 2-3 years, with a few dedicated “regulars” including yourself, which continues even today (despite all this exchange on the very same thing). How amusing ?

You and rshow deserve each other...like a pesky woodpecker deserves steel fencepost. J

Wrong analogy.

Besides, that debate [if there were any] would be NO where like what Forums readers have seen for a few years among the dedicated regulars, including yourself.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense