New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (14102 previous messages)

lchic - 09:54pm Sep 28, 2003 EST (# 14103 of 14122)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

No lies here Showalter:

    KATIX.com (Stanford Geeks - Search Engine)
    Latest news
  • This page is heavily under construction and does not contain anything useful yet.
Time to getup and Google!

gisterme - 05:31am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14104 of 14122)

"...and save mankind thru the MD thread..."

You forgot Bill Casey, Bluestar! We shouldn't forget his involvement during Showalter's formative years.

gisterme - 05:37am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14105 of 14122)

lchic -

"...'Ignore' (see preferences button) can be used to take out monikers that are non-contributory to the header above in either the narrow or wider senses. It's a useful device - I'm employing it currently..."

If "non-contritubory to the header of above" is the standard you use to decide whom to ignore then I can understand how you'd use that device on rshow and cantabb. Neither of them are contributory to the header topic. Of course by fair application the same standard you'd have to ignore yourself too.

cantabb - 06:20am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14106 of 14122)

gisterme - 05:37am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14105 of 14105)

If "non-contritubory to the header of above" is the standard you use to decide whom to ignore then I can understand how you'd use that device on rshow and cantabb. Neither of them are contributory to the header topic. Of course by fair application the same standard you'd have to ignore yourself too.

I guess that leaves YOU, who can't see any one NOT here "long enough" to ask any questions.

Once again, you keep forgetting that, in reaction to my First post well over a week ago, YOU and other Forum 'regulars' have been strongly defending and trying to justify the continuing abuse of forum.

Having participated and 'wallowed' in the slop for so LONG, you can't keep yourself above it, can you ? No matter how hard you tried in recent exchange with me.

Still smarting under ?

cantabb - 06:27am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14107 of 14122)

gisterme - 05:37am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14105 of 14105)

Cantabb: for the last 12 days.

. Gisterme: Since Mar, 2002 & before

. rshow55: Since Mar, 2002 & before

More Messages Recent Messages (15 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense