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 - 05:06pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14203 of 14217)
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.

Not safe .

But still and interesting proposition.

You never know how you really feel until it comes time to bet.

I've spent much of the day entertaining some very nice in-laws. And I'm still doing it. But I appreciate the question - it is an interesting one in game theory. - And I'll get back to it.

rshow55 - 05:07pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14204 of 14217)
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.

Not safe .

But still an interesting proposition.

You never know how you really feel until it comes time to bet.

I've spent much of the day entertaining some very nice in-laws. And I'm still doing it. But I appreciate the question - it is an interesting one in game theory. - And I'll get back to it.

lchic - 06:20pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14205 of 14217)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

encore

cantabb - 07:31pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14206 of 14217)

fredmoore - 06:24am Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14195 of 14201)

You remain confused.

If you [cantabb] can't close the forum down with your written complaints to NYT AND you cannot convince Rshow to post on topic ... what USE are you and what is the purpose of your continuance?

I’m a forum reader/participant like you – NOT responsible for keeping this forum open or closing it down.

I made a 2-part recommendation on this forum, which you still don’t seem to understand [or the reason I gave]. Since the, my comments and concerns have been amply substantiated by the discussion (?). The Forum "regulars" and the defenders of status quo (including you) disagree, for obvious reasons.

The discussion (almost always off-topic) has had nothing to do with science, and does NOT belong in "Science" forums. What NYT decides to do with this -- NOT my concern. My suggestions stand with the reasons given, regardless of the whining by the abusers and the regular participants in reducing the situation to its present state.

Instead of encouraging rshow55's ramblings, as some of the 'regulars' (including you) seems to have done over time, I have presssed him to substantiate his claims, which he has not done yet and may not be able to do so. He says he feels the pressure.

"[W]hat is the purpose of [my] continuance ?" This is NOT the sole reason for my "continuance" ! Whatever gave you the idea that it was. May be rshow55's, lchic's or yours ! NOT mine !

Like some modern day Madame Lafarge in 'Tale of Two Cities' I think you are as much in need of soul searching as Rshow . At least Rshow shows an interesting vocabulary, and however nonsensical he may be, explains a purpose for his continuance.

Your analogy is wrong: at least READ what Madame LaFarge did do [hint: she watched the happening as she quietly knitted]. NOT like openly confronting the problem, as you have been seeing me do here, is it ?

If you're taken in by the recycled, unoriginal vocabulary and babble (and haven’t bothered for the substance), it’s your own your naivete, that's all.

In terms of Vocabulary, the best words you have to offer are 'preposterous' and 'nonsensical' ... which are in fact apt words to describe your own contribution to this forum.

Calling a spade a spade. As economically as one could. Instead of encouraging and perpetuating a 'nonsensical' discussion, as some regulars, including you, have done.

As a strong defender of rshow, the Forum status quo and the school yard, you offer nothing new here that hasn’t been dismissed a few times before !

Finally, try to have some idea of what you are taking about. Or else, you'd be always working on your 'vocabulary' and better familiarizing yourself with [assigned] Dickens !

cantabb - 07:53pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14207 of 14217)

lchic - 06:32am Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14196 of 14205)

Cantabb "Can't hear what you say - I've got beanz in my ears"

Preferences - Ignore

You don’t need to hear Cantabb. NOT required to.

You’re marching to a different drummer. In perfect obedient synchrony.

Remember: “It got understood and exposed .”

Try "ignore" & stick with it. Please !

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense