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 (14495 previous messages)

cantabb - 12:16am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14496 of 14505)

wrcooper - 11:53pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14493 of 14494)

because I tired of your constant battles with other posters over perceived insults. You should ask yourself why you so often get into flame wars with other posters. You often do post on-topic posts, which I've found informative, but more often than not of late your posts have devolved into prickly attacks against what you deem personal attacks against you. It became tiresome to me.

You don't have to explain your actions.

As to your gratuitous comments, your perception is NOT mine; nor are you in my position to second guess anything.

Your opinions and perceptions are yours, NOT necessarily facts !

I didn't think I asked/expected you to like me, my style, or participate in my battles with other posters (including with you sometime ago).

I fight my own battles, unassisted and on my choosing. You are NOT required to watch, or participate in my controversies.

And, I'm NOT here to please you or any one else, either.

bluestar23 - 12:18am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14497 of 14505)

"set you to "Ignore" because I tired of your constant battles with other posters over perceived insults."

You are completely ignoring the overwhelming issue on this Forum which is R Showalter's amazing and incredible of abuse of the Forum which Cantabb is trying to address...it has nothing to do with insults, what are you talking about...?

cantabb - 12:26am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14498 of 14505)

bluestar23 - 12:18am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14497 of 14497)

You [WrCooper] are completely ignoring the overwhelming issue on this Forum which is R Showalter's amazing and incredible of abuse of the Forum which Cantabb is trying to address...it has nothing to do with insults, what are you talking about...?

He just felt obliged to make some gratuitous comments, and offer an explanation for his preferences that NO body had even asked for, or much less was interested in !

Then, he whines about the response he receives to such self-serving actions and personal opinions [proffered as some thing worth more than that].

Nothing unusual, bluestar23 !

bbbuck - 01:48am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14499 of 14505)

Here at MD we post what we want, when want.

Mr.wr -I have seen showalter in person-cooper simply stated the reason for putting MWCBN on ignore.

He gave a reasonable explanation.

Now me, I ignore you, because you're a fi.

bluestar23 - 02:09am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14500 of 14505)

"Here at MD we post what we want, when want."

Normally this is fine...but the statement is no longer adequate in face of rshow55, sorry. His abuseful hijacking of this Forum (for his own separate Purposes) makes it unfortunately necessary to deal with the phenomenon of Showalter....in a direct manner....

cantabb - 02:41am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14501 of 14505)

bbbuck - 01:48am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14499 of 14500)

Here at MD we post what we want, when want.

Mr.wr -I have seen showalter in person-cooper simply stated the reason for putting MWCBN on ignore.

He gave a reasonable explanation.

Now me, I ignore you, because you're a fi.

Whatever "Mr. wr" chose to do or why he saw showalter is his business. I don't have to know; the forum does NOT need to know.

Why he chose to ignore "MWCBN" is his preference -- whatever you mean by this juvenile attempt at acronym. Same with YOU.

No explanation was required from "Mr.Wr" or from you [bbbuck]; No one even asked you two to explain anything.

Why you and "Mr wr" felt so compelled to explain something that was NOT asked for or required --- NOT the least of my concerns !

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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