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 (14172 previous messages)

jorian319 - 05:27pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14173 of 14184)
"Darwin taught that we are worthless." "Darwin taught that killing your neighbor is just being natural and therefore unavoidable." - - James "Liar" Nienhuis

I don't think there is any defense against measles, except maybe a vaccine. But vaccines hurt. I guess the pressing question is

"how much hurt are we willing to endure for the benefit of not worrying about measles?"

http://www.someselfreferencingcrap.com/

http://www.somemoreselfreferencingcrap.com/

http://www.evenmoreselfreferencingcrap.com/

</showalter>

cantabb - 05:37pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14174 of 14184)

Barney's Rx to World Problem !

rshow55 - 06:12pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14175 of 14184)
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.

Loop tests are essential to get logical closure on anything that matters.

A quote from " way back " with plenty of intermediate detail is useful.

13323 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.0bqDbINhK9g.2855040@.f28e622/15013 from the script of Casablanca http://6nescripts.free.fr/Casablanca.pdf p. 92

Rick comes quickly up to Renault.

. Rick: How can you close me up. On what grounds?

. Renault: I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!

This display of nerve leaves Rick at a loss.

. - - - -

This thread has gone on a long time - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm - and usages cannot be accidental.

In Casablanca - it isn't made clear whether gambling is in violation of some ordinance. But it is clear that, de facto - it has gone on a long time.

Of course the NYT could close down this thread any time it wanted - or bar me.

Right now, I'm going on. Though I will take a little time, to try to see how I might get through, if not to cantabb and jorian - to others.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.0bqDbINhK9g.2855040@.f28e622/9946

cantabb - 06:46pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14176 of 14184)

rshow55 - 06:12pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14175 of 14175)

Two-three more self-references to irrelevancies.

Loop tests are essential to get logical closure on anything that matters.

For that, first, you need FACTS on a well-defined issue, and a rational approach toward an objective: You've neither defined the issue, nor have the relevant facts on it [your opinion is NOT a fact-substitute], a rational approach using the facts, or a reasonable objective you think you are working on.

Mere talking of "Loop Tests" is NOT going to anywhere, no matter how long you keep repeating yourself.

The rest (including references to Casablanca etc) is just more of the same wasteful aimlessness.

Of course the NYT could close down this thread any time it wanted - or bar me.

Regardless of what would NYT do, if anything at all, the FACT remains you have used the MD Forum for reasons, absolutely NOTHING to do with "Science" or the Forum objective defined in its Header. That is an abuse of privilege !

You are NOT focused at all and show no inclination toward that to carry on a rational discussion. The issues are always clouded by personal obsession and interests.

Right now, I'm going on. Though I will take a little time, to try to see how I might get through, if not to cantabb and jorian - to others.

Regardless, you can NOT avoid the questions. And, your obsessive self-referencing to your own totally irrelevant posts serves NO purpose, yours, NYT's or the forum readers'. I doubt if you'll escape criticism if you continue to abuse NYT posting privilege (regardless of what NYT thinks or does].

bbbuck - 07:10pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14177 of 14184)

..i miss bluestar.

that guy was really interesting.

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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