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 (14210 previous messages)

cantabb - 01:14am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14211 of 14217)

fredmoore - 11:31pm Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14209 of 14209)

Preposterous!

What else do you think I am, if NOT a forum reader/participant ? An NYT employee ? Or GW ? Rice ? [Look up 'preposterous'. Keep your dictionary handy]

Responsibility is HARDLY the issue. The issue is one of intent and you have clearly expressed your intent to close this forum.

This is what really qualifies as "Preposterous."

What else is the issue if NOT 'responsibility' for your posts and your claims ?

You keep forgetting that I made 2 suggestions to NYT: Move it a non-science/political/conspiracy theories/kitchen sink 'forum, because it does NOT qualify as a "Science" forum, or, to stop the continuing abuse of forum posting privileges, shut it down.

And having failed in that intent the purpose of your continuance is now in question.

That's really nonsense. Since you don't know what MY 'intent' was, how in the world can you speculate on whether or not I have 'failed' in it ? What's this about "my continuance.. now in question" ? You think rshows55's "continuance" is perfectly legitimate ?

Besides, who in the world do you think you are to even pose such a question ?

Post something about Missile Defence or perhaps a KAEP (as an alternative to Missile Defense) and show you can do the Science. You clearly have good logic capability but for some freudian reason are failing to use that talent to its best advantage.

Spare us your arm-chair psychoanalysis ! You're NOT qualified !

Didn't you notice what I've been doing here for the past 2 weeks (NOT 2+ years) ? I've been addressing questions and comments from you (from immediately after my first post) and others. And, asking rshow55 to tell me what specifically he think he has neen doing here and what has he accomplished.

Further, your continual, self aggrandising harrassment of Rshow is no more and no less effective a means of occupying YOURSELF than Mme LaFarge's knitting was of occupying herself as she pursued her silent enjoyment of revenge.

Did you know what Madame LaFarge was said to have really done ? Read it.

"self-aggrandising harassment of Rshow": Does it make any sense ? Asking the poster to substantiate his claims and to focus (instead of burdening the forum with more self-referencing inanities), "a harassment" ? Perhaps to YOU, the defender of this abuse and the status quo !

Do you, as his supporter and apparent admirer, know what he has been doing and what has he accomplished on (and via) this forum ? Since he can't focus and explain, may be you can -- particularly when you appear to have understood his contributions and appreciate them !

IMHO the analogy is perfectly apt.

Read it FIRST before you make a comment.

You want revenge on Rshow because he will not yield to your will that he should post the way YOU think is fit and proper. You may as well be knitting .... as your continual vituperative questions are just as effective.

"[R]evenge" ? For what ? You must not think through before you post !

While you and others have been participating in his overly-simplistic digressions, I've at least pressed him to define what he thinks he has been doing ["checking" and the rest he does] and what has he accomplished, in relation to his claims ? While you seem to understand what he's doing here, he says he now feels the pressure. As his loyal collaborator says, cryptically as ever, "It got understood and exposed," while you're still busy carrying water for him.

If you actually read my posts in context you would see that I try to steer Rshow into more rational and fruitful channels. What I see is just the opposite. You're welcome to delude yourself, as he does.

Like yourself, Rshow too has some scientific and in his case

More Messages Recent Messages (6 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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