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.

rshow55 - 04:21pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13916 of 13923)
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.

An interesting article:

. Play Fair: Your Life May Depend on It By NICHOLAS WADE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/weekinreview/21WADE.html

If my survival was in your hands - what would happen?

Cantabb , I think it is clear that if the monitors wanted to construe the pupose of this thread exactly according to the heading - or any of the headings this thread has carried since its beginning in May 2000 ( those headings are here: 756 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ZoSKbuzXI4r.1597922@.f28e622/949 ) - about 80% of the 25000 posts that have gone onto this thread would have been barred.

About that percentage of my posts - almarst's posts - and gisterme's posts would have been barred. I think the monitors did well to permit what they permitted.

You're right when you say:

when there is ONE specified purpose, NOT difficult to see what's "wasteful, incoherent and nonsensical" for THAT purpose.

The question is what fits - according to what assumptions - with what weights - for what purposes. Beautiful by one set of standards can be - will be - ugly from another. People don't have to fight about those disagreements. http://www.mrshowalter.net/DBeauty.html

Cantabb, when you say:

And, the 'purpose' of this forum, as of others, is clearly stated.

you're right that there is a clear, explicit statement. But I find it impossible believe that that statement is "the whole story" about the purpose of this thread - in the eyes of either the participants or the NYT organization - because of the way it has been used - both before and after your 59 postings over the last few weeks.

I very much welcome your closing line above

See IF you CAN help make it worthwhile for NYT and the forum readers !

I've been trying to do so - sometimes under complex circumstances - and I think that some of the things you find worst about the thread are some of the best things.

Meaningless generalities are worthless. But meaningful generalities are precious.

For stable end games - workable stable arrangements - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. Especially if win-win outcomes are to be possible.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

There's a great deal specific - right above.

Here's a question for you.

Cantabb: Working with the patterns of discourse ( or patterns of closing off discourse) that you advocate so indignantly - how are those key questions - that are vital for workable closure of negotiations ever to be resolved?

You indignantly classify decent outcomes out of existence, advocating procedures that make closure impossible. Those procedures do give an enormous arbitrary power to whoever has "the red pen" in their hands.

I'm taking some time to exercise.

9002 - 9012 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ZoSKbuzXI4r.1597922@.f28e622/10529 set out some background of this thread that didn't happen by accident - wasn't ignored by the monitors of these threads - and would be entirely inconsistent with some things you want now

rshow55 - 04:23pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13917 of 13923)
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.

Cantabb - I'm trying to keep my temper under control - have you thought about doing that? You may be the best editor in the world - but I think you're applying standards in wrong places, and wrong times.

I'll be rereading your criticism - but think you're bridling exactly in the places where the things that are most important are.

Maybe I'm backwards? Perhaps. You may be, too.

This thread represents a lot of work. Not just mine. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

jorian319 - 04:39pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13918 of 13923)

Unfortunately, Robert, the degree of travail associated with a result is not a useful measure of that result's value - especially to anyone else.

Possibly your statements regarding "correctness" "fairness" "outcomes" "procedures" and all your other habitually overworked terms, are all for your own benefit?

If so, I, for one, am inclined to forgive the minor transgression that is misuse of a public forum, in favor of the greater good that is your healing.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense