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 (15183 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:58pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15184 of 15196)
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.

Bluestar - you're exactly right (modifying your language just a bit) that you're not "honour-bound to arrive at anybody's "conclusions." . . . but your own.

People make up their own minds. They don't do it in a vacuum. Often, patterns come to fit one conclusion, rather than another. The process isn't perfect - but a lot of times, it works very well.

lchic - 05:34pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15185 of 15196)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The cantabbulator sets itself up as an ultimate authority as to what has gone down on this thread ... with misses and wrong attributions way off ... making cantabbulation a non-exact art - if artform it is - it's certainly not science!

The Cantabbulator has nothing to say on why authority is assumed over others on this board -no self 'who or why' definition regarding postings.

Here's a summary of the Cantabbulators contribution to this thread :

START

END

Without even the 'Coopivication' of

MORE

and

CONCLUSION!

____________

lchic - 05:50pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15186 of 15196)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The ghost of Thomas Gradgrind lives on through the Cantabbulator


jorian319 - 05:54pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15187 of 15196)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Gee, cantabb, looks like you're starting to effect the demeanor of the world asset. Better go easy.

rshow55 - 05:58pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15188 of 15196)
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.

A lot of postings on this thread - not everybody's going so easy - and sometimes it entertains me to look back at them.

Some from September 28-29 interest me, and might interest and please others.

14099 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15805

14108 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15814

fredmoore 14109 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15815

14112 - 14115 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15818

lchic - 06:15pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15189 of 15196)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

It would be interesting to collect Jorians 'wager' postings on this and other threads .... he's a sure-bet risk taker .... has to be or he'd be walking around with his pockets turned-out :)

rshow55 - 06:27pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15190 of 15196)
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 proposed a wager - and I suggested the Onion as a stakeholder

14226-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15936

and Jorian319 accepted - - 13232-33 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pZAzbgpwOBt.0@.f28e622/15942

I'm a poor man, but the idea might still be an interesting one, one way or another.

More Messages Recent Messages (6 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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