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 - 08:29am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14621 of 14623)

fredmoore - 05:48am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14617 of 14619)

Apart from your schoolyard behavior and overt hostility, you also have a problem with language and concepts.

And, you show that again in your latest posts. NOW, see if you can follow this, step by step:

1. Apparently, you still have NOT looked you “obsession” yet. Now look up ‘compulsive’ - that would be under ‘C’. Or, better, find a medical dictionary and look up “obsessive-compulsive” ! And check that against the Forum behaviors of rshow55, lchic and yourself -- and compare each, if you can, with that of me and klsanford0. A difficult task for you, BUT even school-children can do it – NOT in the school-yard, though (or “barnyard” to you) !

Reminder: ALL I can do is to hope you can understand what you read.

2. You have now added [edited] little things to your previous post:

(a) “RE:” before klsanford0, and changed his/her post # from “14590 of 14592” to “ 5 14590 of 514592,” may be to be consistent with my post #, wrongly given before “514594 of 514610,” and (b) a quotation mark BEFORE and after a paragraph you had posted earlier: “ [ to WRCooper] ……. See my response to WRCooper above ! “]. Are these the “few mods” you’re tslking about ?

However, despite this little things NOW, your quoted exchange STILL puts my comment [“See my response to WRCooper above !”] as if klsanford0’s. Your carelessness !

Such things don’t clarify the situation. With wrong posts #s, you don’t even help interested readers check the exchange for themselves. Based on my past exchanges with you, I don’t expect such care from you, but it was amusing to see how you think it “Reads OK to [you]” -- which STILL does NOT.

Btw, here’s the link to my post to klsanford0, if any one is interested in checking out against fredmoore's version: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?1@13.f8qTbXRILaq.1138741@.f28e622/16304

Now to your school-yard/barnyard, and parroting:

Reads OK to me. The number and date on the post says it all. Cantread probably missed that! I've added a few mods but the idea is pretty clear. What do others think? Is Cantabb an obsessive compulsive freak or does he do some service here? You all know my answer.

“Cantread” ? “obsessive compulsive freak” ?

The only ‘service’ you have done here so far IS: to bring your school yard-barnyard behavior here [from somewhere downunder], to strongly support rshow’s abuse and your effort in extending it, to ‘talk’ about KAEP, WITHOUT showing the link to MD as intended.

This, on the top of your continued problems with language and comprehension [including your earlier analogy to Mme Lafarge — changed later to Mme. Defarge].

Cantabb, FIRST, know what "obsession" really means to help you find an appropriate behaviour for this forum.

IF you can’t find the definition, at least try to see the difference between rshow’s thousands of posts in the 2+years (along with lchic’s), and MINE (in the past 20 days, pressuring rshow to focus]. YOu, apparently, can NOT.

AS for your useless comments: Blowharder! ... you may bust something and give the forum a break from your childish barnyard behaviour for a while.

Wow ! “Blowharder” ? “Bust something” ? “childish barnyard behasvious” ? Things that apply to you, still in the school yard somewhere downunder.

PS1. I suppose you use the Foghorn Leghorn barnyard dictionary. I've no idea what the definition of obsession is in that. Probably something to do with Mme Defarge NOT knitting when she in fact does, I suspect.

Obviously you “have no idea what the definition of obsession is,” BUT that did NOT prevent you from making a fool of yourself, once again.

As to “Mme Defarge” [which you initially thought was “Mme Lafarge”] and her knitting, what else can I tell you ? Y

cantabb - 08:32am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14622 of 14623)

fredmoore - 05:48am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14617 of 14619)

cont'd with overlap....

As to “Mme Defarge” [which you initially thought was “Mme Lafarge”] and her knitting, what else can I tell you ? You still can’t see how poorly your analogy is. Not surprisingly, I guess, in light of this “obsession”/”obsessive compulsive” question ?

Try to do something constructive for a change ! Even in or from your schoolyard/barnyard !

How about KAEP relation to MD, as stated in the forum header ? Any luck yet ?

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense