New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (15172 previous messages)

jorian319 - 01:12pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15173 of 15177)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Hey Jimbob!

DID YOU KNOW?

  • A day is 84,000.002 seconds long?

  • In 1879 a day was 84,000 seconds long?

    READ IT AND WEEP, IDIOTBOY!

    jorian319 - 01:15pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15174 of 15177)
    "Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

    Message showed up on the wrong thread! SORRY!

    (Oh, what am I apologizing for? That post is almost as on-topic as anything else showing up here lately...)

    rshow55 - 01:17pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15175 of 15177)
    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.

    Jorian319 - some things do deteriorate (or get better) slowly.

    And some things solidify. For instance - our interaction has elements of cooperation - and some of competition.

    This is a "game that is not a game" - and I've been spending a little time wondering how to "win my game" without cooperation from the NYT team, or gisterme.

    Looks possible to me - but messier, in spots, than things would be with cooperation.

    Just like a standoff with the NK's looks messier - to me - than a competent negotiation that has a chance of closing.

    ( That is, a negotiation that actually meets the needs of the people involved - and doesn't ask anybody to do anything they can't do - and have to fight about. )

    cantabb - 01:20pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15176 of 15177)

    rshow55 - 12:58pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15172 of 15172)

    Cantabb: Your situation, current and past, and your obligations are ALL YOURS, and yours alone absolutely nothing to do with this Forum

    These comments occur to me: ........... script of Casablanca http://6nescripts.free.fr/Casablanca.pdf p. 92

    NOT responsive. Doesn't even make sense. Your constant references to Casablanca are just pathetic, if anything at all.

    The idea that the NYT and I don't exist within a system of reciprocal obligations is strange by now.

    YOU discuss that with Sulzberger (NYT) ! Whatever the "mutual obligation" ! NOT really relevant here. This is a public forum -- NOT a place for grievances against the US Intelligence agencies.

    Also ask Sulzberger (NYT) IF a discussion of your "mutual obligations" to each other is of ANY business here on this Forum !

    Since you still have NOT contradicted my assumptions about your activities on the Forum and the things you claim to have accomplished, my assumptions [ = "Assumptions re rshow55/lchic"] seem closer to THE "truth" that lchic refers to in her tag-line !

    rshow55 - 01:30pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15177 of 15177)
    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 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.BHjhb9cnOTm.2832989@.f28e622/16888 , the Sulzberger point is interesting. Though I wonder how much authority you have to raise it.

    Once, a long while ago - I called in to the NYT - got a secretary - and she was kind enough to give me Sulzberger's email adress.

    I thought a while about sending to it - and decided, then, that I couldn't. For reasons that made sense then - but don't apply now.

    That was a long time ago - and I didn't hang onto the address.

    Now, though I'd be afraid - Sulzberger has a lot of rank - I'd be honored to contact him. Or someone with a name who represented him - knowing how valuable Sulzberger's time is.

    But the grammer of the situation would be a good deal easier if someone at the NYT, with a name, would call me. Or call someone (for instance, at the UW ) who knew me, and who'd call me.

    I think things could work out in ways that the average reader of The New York Times would find comfortable - and consistent with the national interest.

    I would be honored to have things work out in a way that gave the NYT satisfaction - if they were compatible with my reasonable function.

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense


    To post a message, compose your text in the box below, then click on Post My Message (below) to send the message.

    Message:



    You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button which follows your message after you post it.