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 - 06:18am Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15266 of 15270)

wrcooper - 11:45pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15256 of 15260)

ATTENTION "MISSILE DEFENSE" FORUM PARTICIPANTS

If you wish to participate in a discussion of missile defense, I recommend you put posters rshow55 and lchic

on your "Ignore Posts list". Click on "Preferences" and scroll down. Enter those names in the list, and their posts will no longer appear when you read the forum, only a message indicating that a post from them is present.

I recommend this because these people persist in posting long, off-topic posts that can prove distracting, and even disturbing, leading people to avoid this forum.

This is just a suggestion, based on my personal experience and my hope that more people, such as yourself, will join those of us concerned about the issue of missile defense in a focused and hopefully enjoyable and informative discussion of it.

Hey, what happened to cantabb (he was included in you earlier [equally gratuitous] suggestion for the “ignore” ?

“In re” the “ignore”: Fine, IF it’s working for you. Why worry about others ? I like your faux-legalese ["in re.."] !

wrcooper - 01:01am Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15261 of 15263)

[to bluestar]:

In my opinion, more people will attend this forum if they avoid reading rshow55 and lchic. I have found it liberating not to read their posts or having to scroll past them. They're long and often take up pages of forum space.

Strange but interesting. At first, he [WRC} had me grouped with rshow55 and lchic. Then, after reminding him of the difference, he separates me from that most unlikely company.

As I said, this recommendation is a personal suggestion. People may choose to read rshow55 and lchic's posts. That's fine. I suspect, however, that many folks take a quick look at the forum, read an rshow55 post rambling on about this or that, and they never come back. That's a pity, because this issue is important..

Gratuitous ! Mere “ignoring” posters may be convenient to you, but it is hardly any way to solve a problem you have been complaining so much about.

I think the "Ignore Posts list" is designed for posters just like rshow55 and lchic and robkettenberg. They aren't prevented from posting, because they don't really violate protocol, but we don't have to digest their wretched verbiage. All I see of them nowadays are brief messages saying that a post by rshow55 or lchic has been recorded, but none of the text of their posts appears. I can scroll past five or six rshow55 posts, therefore, in half a second to get on to worthwhile material.

Good fer you. “Ignoring” them doesn’t prevent them from posting on this Forum either. NOT a universal Rx, is it ? Others have their own preference and manage just as well, if not much better.

I've paid my dues with rshow55, and maybe you haven't, and you're not ready to write him off. But I am and have. Reading him isn't worth it, and I think he hurts the forum. That's why I've taken to periodically posting a message suggesting that people put him on their Ignore Post lists. I'm hoping, thereby, to boost participation in this forum by people who actually want to discuss the issue of missile defense. Tonight, for instance, I noticed a bunch of posts by rshow55 and lchic, which is why I decided to post my earlier message.

What YOU wanted to do, and did do, was something no poster in his/her right mind would do: First, for years, you discussed many irrelevant things with him and in much detail over time; Second, you took it upon yourself to repeatedly extend to him invitations for a face-to-face. You met with him and his wife and then bitterly complained on the Forum about the differences in his recall. Now you’ve what appears to be a much chastened attitude --- making repeated recommendations to “ignore” him and lchic.

Isn’t this pretty interesting……. ?

lchic - 07:17am Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15267 of 15270)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Long on the short of it ... Short on the long of it

That's Cantabb for you!

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense