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.

lchic - 09:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14695 of 14704)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Stubborn:

From this story, people drew the idiom “will never come to understand unto death.” We use it to describe those who are very stubborn, or stupid, and do not realize what they did wrong even when they die. http://web12.cri.com.cn/english/2002/Apr/58519.htm

cantabb - 09:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14696 of 14704)

fredmoore - 07:07pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14691 of 14694)

Once again, the schooyard/barnyard [SYBY] is dragged in here -- "irregardless" of the repeated drubbing.

Nothing of substance on anything !

He's gradually getting understood

Still NOT by YOU !

... and overexposed

Not as much as your idol, rshow55

PSOT! Not just your usual tiresome BS FISKING.

(PSOT: Post Something On Topic)

Can't handle it, eh ?

What happened to your KAEP-MD connection ?

cantabb - 09:33pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14697 of 14704)

rshow55 - 03:37pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14682 of 14684)

A strange set of “platitudinous” points, as if we need them. And, with comments that are highly ironic.

It would be easier to avoid doing these things [finding: “areas of disagreement,” “differences between people and groups” & emphasizing them, “go around in circles” or diverge”] by accident if the basic "platitudes about grammar and classification" were better understood. And easier to avoid willful evasion and misinformation.

Don’t know what you’re driving at, if anything specific, but let me take a moment and try to parse it:

You think it’s “ easier to avoid” the ‘things’ you mentioned “by accident” ? How’re you going to do it “by accident” – you mean a planned ‘accident’ ? Why would you want to avoid them in the first place [except going “around in circles”] ? If you can’t see/appreciate the areas of disagreement or differences in people/groups, would you rather see a relative phlosophically homogeneous, conformist society? Because you avoid (or don’t want to see) the differences, there wouldn’t be a problem to see, much less solve -- right ?

Aren’t you imagining some kind of futuristic la-la land where such differences are not seen (so its resolution is moot) -- authoritatively (Orwellian “1984”), like a Communist rule of the past or some kind of la-la land where homogeneity and conformity is desired and expected.

I agree who’d want to “go around in circles,” but I thought you said the ”loop test” required it. Right ?

I don’t understand the connection you’re trying to make here with a better understanding of “platitudes about grammar and classification” ? Who is doing “willfull evasion and misinformation” ? Unless you have specific to the contrary, the only ‘evasion’ and ‘misinformation’ I see here (“Willfull” or not, I can’t say) comes through YOUR posts and your supporters, lchic & schoolyard/barnyard[SYBY] Fredmoore !

Most other posters are infact trying to make various points clear and clearer to you (and others) and have even advised you and your supporters to “avoid” obfuscation ! Further, when, for the sake of clarity and convenience, I include in my post another poster’s comments I am responding to, some posters had whined about the length of my posts, or feeling forced to see a posters’ comments they did not want to see in the first place (or had decided to “ignore” them).

At this simple level of generality - people ought to be logically competent.

Generality only when it’s needed, and when the people involved agree on what a 'term' [a "generalization"] really stands for [eg, in professional, scientific, computer or political jargon] . However, it is very unhelpful when the specifics do need to be discussed: Try going to your doctor, lawyer or a manufacturer with a generality !

Today, most people are not.

Strange that YOU, of all people, should say that.

That makes of muddles and fights that ought to be avoidable.

In fact, it’s with clarity that you can avoid lot of unnecessary confusion [often created by generalities, ambiguities and obfuscation, intentional or otherwise] .

If I'm emphasizing the point to a degree some find unpleasant - I'm doing it because I think it is important - and may even be useful for people professionally associated with The New York Times Co.

What you’re saying is “important” only to the extent that it is inconsistent with what we see from you here.

What has this got to do with “people professionally associated with The New York Times Co” ? Are the NYT–associated people doing something that you think creates problems for you – like banning you reportedly a few times ?

lchic - 09:35pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14698 of 14704)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Stubborness must affect the way folks look and see.

note: (Preferences Ignore Cantabb)

With new-product uptake the expectation is that first takers will be those who either gamble, or can afford to take a risk. The tailenders wait until the price per unit is reduced to affordability.

With new-thought the question is - who takes up on it first and who last?

Some may 'see the value' ... others may later 'come to see' it.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense