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 - 03:21pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14339 of 14369)

rshow55 - 02:12pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14334 of 14338)

rshow55 tag line: 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.

Claims NEVER substantiated !

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

What ? Who said that ?

Your own straw man !

You’re the ONE who brought up “cheating” – without any earthly ‘reason’ or explaining it ?

What you keep missing is: If you’re going to “connect the dots” on any issue, “the dots” you need are “relevant verifiable FACTS,” [NOT opinion-fiction-fact mixture]. And making most rational, logical links between/among them. NOT just mindless “grinding” of this mixture in “loop tests.”

Understanding an issue is a progressive process {jig saw puzzle, where pieces are “checked”]; putting them in place to see an emerging picture. NOT just mindlessly “checking” the pieces in “loop test” – how in the world can you ever hope to develop, much less understand, the picture involved, if you keep mired in a mixtre of fact/fiction ?

We're dealing with that basic issue - as it applies to the things discussed on this thread.

NOT really ! See above for explanation, one more time for you.

I think this article is worth several looks: Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order By ADAM LIPTAK ……

What if the issue is an unwillingness of reporters to reveal who they are?

Is it cheating to form connections - make conclusions - and check them? If it is - then the press has an operationally near-total right to lie. ……That's a subject that has been much discussed on this thread - and has concerned Almarst from the beginning - and me, too. You can check that.

You see ANY relevance, even remotely, of ALL this to MD ?

I've been arguing that effectual checking has been largely classified out of existence. Cantabb's tactics show an essential way in which that is done. Effectively prohibit crossreferencing or crosschecking - or construe it so narrowly that it cannot usefully be done.

You are again misrepresenting things. Your lack of understanding of basic things, NO excuse !

You won’t know “checking” if it came face to face with you and showed you how to do it, forget “effectual.”

Just recall your own “Unchecked” speculations on the identity of various posters {Bush, Rice, Putin et al).

You STILL have NOT gotten the very basics of “checking”: What are you “checking” for ? [Checking for “word count” is different from checking for substance, or relevance]. You verify the “facts” and separate them from fiction [cross-referencing is to look for corroboration, accuracy, etc], and you try to make “rational” connections [NOT haphazard, paranoid wild stabs] to see a picture emerge. What you describe can only keep you in mindless ‘rote’ [may be a hint to what you do here] !

rshow55 - 02:27pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14337 of 14338)

You don't like questions about who poster are, do you.

What is POSTED is what counts -- NOT who posts it ! May be you need to know who is GWB, Rice and Putin.

By now, they are basic and valid questions.

“Basic” and “valid”: may be, to you for your paranoid speculations

The “basic” and “valid” questions are, ONCE again: What do you think you have been doing here on MD forum ? And, Is there any way you can even remotely substantiate various claims you have made here ?

WITHOUT knowing that, the rest of what you have to say so far seems to be an attempt to deflect the questions, drag in irrelevancies, agonizing attempts at rationalization, mindless accusations, and your paranoia.

You’d rather NOT answer these “basic” and “valid” questions ! Is it not the case ? Your interest in the identity of questioner/poster [GWB/Rice or ??] is just as immaterial, nonsensi

cantabb - 03:22pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14340 of 14369)

rshow55 - 02:12pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14334 of 14338)

continued with overlap...

You’d rather NOT answer these “basic” and “valid” questions ! Is it not the case ?

Your interest in the identity of questioner/poster [GWB/Rice or ??] is just as immaterial, nonsensical, as it has been !

bluestar23 - 03:30pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14341 of 14369)

"World Asset Ichic"...ha! sometimes it's all too funny....maybe Showalter has a sense of humour and this whole thread is one Gigantic Wind-Up...if only....

One notices that the "World Assset" doesn't make too many references to Showalter himself, or indicate that s/he feels as if s/he is collaborating with rshow55.....it looks like a real one-way Romance to me....

cantabb - 03:53pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14342 of 14369)

bluestar23 - 03:30pm Oct 5, 2003 EST (# 14341 of 14341)

Part of Rshow's exhibitionism, I guess. Here and in the links he provided.

Perhaps at par with his professed slavish devotion to some public figures, cited often in his posts and links.

On a public Forum, most people wouldn't want to to talk about personal matters, feelings and asssociations. But NOT our rshow55 !

(27 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense