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 - 03:47am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14505 of 14512)
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.

White House Official Apologizes for Role in Uranium Claim By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/international/worldspecial/22CND-HADLEY.html

I don't see how that could have happened. Rice and Hadley are both too competent to have that happen "by mistake.

We had the President of the United States misinforming the American people to justify a war.

( Which then screwed up . )

The New York Times should want to cover that in every detail - not cover it up.

- - - -

If I were a New York Times stockholder who was not " in the family " - - - I'd be concerned.

May 15th 2003 | NEW YORK From The Economist print edition

Crisis management for a top media brand

QUALITY control problems can wreak havoc with any business, especially when a reputation for high quality is a crucial ingredient of its brand. Ask the New York Times, which is having to deal with its own version of Ford's dodgy Firestone tyres, and Coca-Cola's Belgian taste troubles.

The glitch in question is Jayson Blair

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html

At the level of substance the recent piling on here is more serious than the Jayson Blair case. Certainly if gisterme has any signficant connections to the Bush administration - and the paper knows that.

Manipulation of information, Jayson Blair style - was about small details. The issues that have long been in play here involve more than that.

14072 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939288@.f28e622/15778 - - - The Jayson Blair scandal happened, in large part - because the NYT has a culture that is based on ascribed status - and not checking.

Especially not covering up .

Maybe I'm wrong - and cantabb , Jorian319 and bluestar are not salaried NYT officers or employees.

But if they are - if any of them are - the NYT organization should worry about what it is selling - and what implicit promises it is making to the people who buy the paper.

cantabb - 04:37am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14506 of 14512)

rshow55 - 03:41am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14503 of 14505)

If you found one of your own posts “worth reposting - it isn't something that ought to be buried,” you need to include MY response to it – for the balance -- unless you want to continue to misrepresent things. Your own posts are NOT the whole story. Here's the rest of the story :

rshow55 quoted: cantabb - occasionally writes something worthwhile, and to the point

cantabb response you did NOT quote: "Coming from a person who can’t do either, what a weird comment !"

And, here are some more of my comments:

“Don’t you think people can READ what’s already in 2 brief posts recently – without your ‘excerpts? You didn’t think that my more recent post about “Mistaken identities: Looks like a "Loop Test" was “worthwhile” and “to the point” ? May not have been comfortable for you !” http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?1@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939288@.f28e622/16111

If you say your comment “isn't something that ought to be buried,” my response to it shouldn’t be either !!! Because your comments are NOT the entire story !

rshow55 - 03:42am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14504 of 14505)

Gisterme , I didn't come to the conclusion that you were Bush quickly - and maybe I jumped to an incorrect conclusion. My early judgements were more guarded, and they were repeated. They were expressed as follows, in language that included deputy national security advisor Hadley. ……..

In this post, you’ve 20+ self-references that had already been RE-posted just a day or so ago. All on your zigzagging on gisterme identity. How many times must you tell us how you keep goofing up. What a useless, wasteful exercise. Unless this is your version of "Loop Test": same thing [or mistake] over & over !

rshow55 - 03:47am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14505 of 14505)

Same paranoia. Same nonsense.

Maybe I'm wrong - and cantabb , Jorian319 and bluestar are not salaried NYT officers or emploees

Do you learn anything from your mistakes. Or you’d rather keep repeating them ever so often in your mindless version of the “Loop Test”?

But if they are - if any of them are - the NYT organization should worry about what it is selling - and what implicit promises it is making to the people who buy the paper.

Another straw man.

Exposing your activities and pressing you and lchic to explain themselves should concern and worry YOU both -- not NYT or the posters. Your insinuations are nothing but just another pathetic ploy.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense