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.

wrcooper - 10:57pm Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14610 of 14616)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.97ZObps8LS2.1117330@.f28e622/16300

klsanford0

You're new. That's why you think trying to joust with Showalter serves a useful purpose. Let's see how you feel a year from now after having read the 10,000th Showalter post that has said basically nothing new or interesting or informative, full of paranoid delusional grandiose blather.

You should realize that the NYT could ban Showalter for calling other posters liars, for ignoring requests to stay on topic, etc. It doesn't. The reason is that the moderators have banned him in the past. He just resubscribes with a slightly different handle and continues as usual.

Showalter is tolerated, because they can't control him. It's simply easier to let him have free rein (limitless reign?) in "Missile Defense," so long as he doesn't resort to speech that is outright abusive. I personally feel that his accusations of lying--which he has leveled at me in the past, among others--count as intolerable speech, but the NYT didn't see it that way. Remember, some of us have called Showalter crazy, loony, psychotic, etc., and I suppose such accusations might be considered (at least by him and even if they're truthful) abusive, too. Anyway, you have to accept that he's here to stay, so long as the NYT won't ban him and make it stick.

Showlater says nothing that really requires serious rebutting. He maunders on endlessly about "checking" and this and that, every once in a while making some off-the-wall statement that another poser is George Bush or Condoleeza Rice or George Johnson, whatever, but such nonsense can be simply ignored. It's utterly inconsequential. That's what I've realized. He's not worth getting in a snit over. He really isn't. Just scroll by his posts (which is easier to do if you place him on your "Ignore List").

I really have no interest in reading posts that take address his nonsense. They're a waste of time. Even gisterme finally realized that, and also has placed Showlater on his "Ignore List". That's really the sensible thing to do.

You'll eventually come to think that way, too. It might seem arrogant or smug of me to tell you that, but, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I bandied words with Bob Showalter for about six years. Not any more. I'm finished. It's not worth it. He's not worth it.

fredmoore - 11:11pm Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14611 of 14616)

The Definition of obsession:

cantabb - 08:16pm Oct 7, 2010 EST (# 514594 of 514610)

klsanford0 - 07:53pm Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14590 of 14592)

[to WRCooper] Yes, it does ["to fight Showalter"]...it might keep people like Showalter from continuing to perpetrate his scandalous behaviour....Showalter is committing daily crimes of every sort against the Forum.....your position is like that of one who will not catch the burglar who is robbing your house.. See my response to WRCooper above !

Too laid-back to catch "the burglar who is robbing your house" ? :)

SO, expecting someone to call the cops when a neighbors or friends house is being burglarized -- totally out of the question ? Chilling, even as an idle thought !