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.

cantabb - 01:53pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14329 of 14369)

rshow55 - 01:08pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14326 of 14328)

.

You keep confirming how extensively and constantly you have been abusing this NYT Forum --including for some strange personal purposes.

Absence of Malice (1981) ...

Irrelevant !

This thread has been a big effort - and not only for me. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

Actually, ONLY for you, for whatever purpose.

My guess is that this thread has covered much more on the technical aspects of missile defense than any other publicly available - though someone may point out one with more. It has dealt with more than that - and the issues involved are of direct interest to The New York Times - the readers of the TIMES - and to all people. This thread deals with basics - and basics where we have problems that need to be solved - for practical, emotional, and moral reasons - including reasons at the level of life and death.

Not really. According to you, only ~20% may have been relevant. Most likely, much less.

This thread "deals" NOT with the "basics" of MD, but mostly with your airing of your personal problems, and various conspiracies you and your "world asset" [lchic] imagine.

Kids should know workable answers, in ways that matter, ........ - have to deal with these issues, too.

Irrelevant !

Absolutely every person, without exception knowingly utter falsehoods - and misleads. WHAT'S CHEATING? The english speaking culture doesn't have workable answers to the following questions - and neither do other cultures. Piaget's The Moral Judgement of the Child deals with an interesting subject....The moral judgement of adults and insititutions is an interesting subject, too.

NO relevance to MD !

And one connected to Missile Defense directly - because getting factually correct answers involves moral usages. WISHING WON'T MAKE STAR WARS SO ...

BUT have you done yourself on MD, or for that matter, anything else.

We need better answers than we have. Key questions recur at each of Piaget's levels above the sensorimotor - and the most key issue is vital for the youngest baby, as Erickson and others made clear. That issue is basic trust .

YOU NEED "answers" from YOU! Which you have NOT yet done. I have asked you two basic questions on your activities and claims here -- but you'd anything to NOT answer them, an interesting game to watch.

Cantabb is illustrating by his actions some reasons for concern - and to aid discussion I've taken the liberty of collecting a search of Cantabb 's postings on a single web page.

"Some reasons for concern": FOR YOU ! No one else.

There have been 182 posting "by Cantabb" since September 17th - - none before. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Cantabb_Srch_to10_4.htm

SO ? Shows you CAN do the "search" as well as anybody else. Did you ever GET what he has been trying to say and had ask of you ?

I think people at different stages Piaget discusses in The Moral Judgement of the Child might have different judgements on what Cantabb is doing - and how his work is and is not "cheating."

ASKING you to respond to questions on your activities and claims -- "cheating" [is or is not?] ??? Where's YOUR logic ! Where are "the dots" here ?

Is it cheating to form connections - make conclusions - and check them?

What the heck are you talking about "cheating" ?

We're having an argument on that basic issue. People who take the NYT - and trust it - ought to be interested in how that discussion is going, I think.

The basic issue is that you have been avoiding the questions I asked you a number of t

cantabb - 01:54pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14330 of 14369)

rshow55 - 01:08pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14326 of 14328)

Cont'd with overlap....

We're having an argument on that basic issue. People who take the NYT - and trust it - ought to be interested in how that discussion is going, I think.

The basic issue is that you have been avoiding the questions I asked you a number of times, on: What is it that you think you have been doing here (in relation to MD), and where is the substantiation for the vatrious global claims you have repeatedly made ?

And, in response, all you have been doing is to drag in irrelevancies, yet another tortured rationalization for things nothing to do with MD.

And NOW you're back to poster characterization !

cantabb - 01:59pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14331 of 14369)

bluestar23 - 01:15pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14328 of 14330)

Well, Cantabb, I wish you the best, but showalter is far beyond rational commentary, he's mentally ill....I guess he's taken Ichic's advice and put people like me who interrupt his thread-hijacking on Ignore Function.....

To "Ignore" is THEIR choice. Just like putting their heads in the sand. Doesn't mean the world does NOT go on.

IT Does NOT prevent you or anyone else on commenting on things of interest.

I couldn't care less !

(38 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense