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 - 01:43pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14666 of 14684)

fredmoore - 11:40am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14642 of 14645)

Cont'd with overlap....

In future therefore I will, unless you can get with the program and show that you can be constructive around here, just reply to your meaningless 'personal delusion' posts with the anagram PSOT ... Post something on Topic. That at least will put pay to your stupid FISKING.

What “program” ? Yours {schoolyard/barnyard, senseless analogies & lame poetry)?

What’s “constructive” to you ? Schoolyard/barnyard tactics you continue to display (starting in response to my FIRST post)? Your own “overt hostility” ? Delusions have been all yours and rshow-lchic. Try to think BEFORE you post anything.

Do you think your comments will have any effect at all on what I post here or how I choose to deal with matters ? You’re being too presumptuous !

So keep up the effete barnyard nonsense but don't expect anything but contempt from people who are interested in an amusing and entertaining discussion that leads gently to a credible National Defence solution rather than just a missile defence strategy.

Wow. Talk about “overt hostility” -- so uncontrolled. Did you take your pills today ?

The only barnyard “contempt” I have seen around here is from YOU (your idol, rshow55, may be muddled but NOT as crude or still tied to the ole’ schoolyard ). What “amusing and entertaining” discussions have you had here on MD. [About 20% of ~25,000 posts was the last overly generous estimate from your idol, rshow, himself]. Doesn’t this new found interest of yours come AFTER my pressure since Sept 17? Did you ask rshow55 to do the same you asked me to ? Or, you think he already posts on-topic on MD, all the time ?

PS Irregardless of the context, ………..

There it is ! one more indication of the depth of your linguistic problems: “Irregardless” !

.....when you make a mistake like saying Mme Defarge was doing something other than knitting in the final scenes of the "Tale of Two Cities" then it is customary to apologise and move on. To continually evade the consequences of your own mistakes only reinforces Rshow's determination to do exactly what you are trying to stop. You have shown that you are totally incapable of stopping his posts and only a bolt of lightning will raise your consciousness to a level where this truth sinks in.

“Irregardless” [to quote you] of what you say, it ain’t it. Go over it again, and see for yourself the ‘merit’ of your own analogy – was NOTHING. Is this why you didn’t see it ?

Mistake was yours, and I’m NOT holding my breath for an apology from you. I’d much rather deal with your barnyard tactics, instead. I guess I'll just have to wait till you start making sense: Guess not !

Your schoolyard/barnyard calling you, I think !

fredmoore - 12:06pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14647 of 14649)

[to klsanford0]: As for National Defence, only a fool would not consider all the alternatives and options at this most dangerous juncture in history. Unless you really think Cantabb is a useful addition to this forum you probably have an open mind .. that is all I expect of anyone here

What logic ? With still blinding hostility toward another poster, moi !.

Sure, we like to hear a South African/downunder view of how best to take care of OUR national “defence” !

BUT you didn’t suggest any, other than KAEP where you seem to miss a few “connections” !

rshow55 - 01:56pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14667 of 14684)
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.

Cantabb ( re 14664 - clearing up backlog.)

This may help you organize your clearing up.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/Cantabb_Srch_to10_4.htm - it only goes to Oct 4 - but it does organize the posts you've made here - and organization for a purpose can be useful.

Here's another "reorganization for a specific purpose" that collects postings, links and interlinks on this thread. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Reader_Discussion_'Repress_Yourself'.htm

You surely have a point that "going around and around" can be both dangerous, infuriating, and misleading - and for a fine example of how dangerous or evasive it can be - a graphic connected to the Enron mess works well

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html

See Interactive Graphic: How the Partnerships Worked

There are loops within loops. A multidimensional shell game.

There are problems with "going around and around" - and processes that cycle but do not converge can be funny, too. (See picture.) http://www.mrshowalter.net/IntheCrowd'sFrenzy.htm

But many processes do converge. Very, very many of the solutions in applied math and and pure math, too, involve series.

And series procedures are in fact the way most differential equations are solved - not only approximately - but exactly. The power series solutions to differntial equations show and example of converging and exact calculation.)

Cantabb , I am trying to work through your posts, as well.

But at my pace, in a way that seems reasonable to me, and for my own reasons.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense