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 - 07:11am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15317 of 15323)

rshow55 - 03:52am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15312 of 15312)

NB: Can anyone at NYT, named or not, verify any of rshow55's statements and claims ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yet another re-hash, without a single reason why should your STILL-unspecified personal problems (with CIA, NYT) be of ANY relevance to THIS thread on MD, or of any interest to "the average reader" of NYT.

Neither your 'promises' to Casey and the Eisenhowers, NOR how well you have or have not fulfilled them could be of any interest to anyone else --- EXCEPT yourself.

This IS a public forum -- NOT a vehicle for rsolving such grievances. Even IF it were to serve this role (and this is a BIG 'If'), we don't know THE "truth," do we ? Mere assertions alone -- by you or anyone (without any evidence/support) DO NOT make it the "truth."

Ambiguities within ambiguities aside, what you and your "world asset" have led me believe is that : (i) YOU still don't know what specifically you have working on this thread for the past 3 years, and whatever you think it is, neither you nor your "world asset" have been able to express it. (ii) YOU continue to abuse the posting privilege on NYT toward some undefined personal ends, NOTHING to do with MD or anything associated with it. (iii) You continue to insinuate things WITHOUT any substantiation.

For any rule, there have to be exceptions - and in my particular case, I've been doing just exactly what Casey suggested I do - and for good reasons.

EVEN if your personal situation WERE of any interest to "the average reader" of NYT, you have NOT told "the average reader" of NYT what specifically Casey and others asked YOU to do (relevant to MD) and what did YOU promise him and others. Why do you think there should be an "exception" to this ? Without you giving them ANY basis or any supportive reason, you expect anyone to believe you ? A gross imposition, isn't it ?

Even though the costs have been higher than I'd expected by a great deal - and the ugliness greater - and the irresponsible uses of power by the NYT much greater than I'd expected - it remains true that a great deal seems to have worked.

More ambiguity, more insinuations !

I have, at least, conveyed a great deal of information to NYT staff - and that's an excellent group to communicate with, to do the job assigned to me. Casey thought so, and both Eisenhowers would have thought so.

You expect NYT staff (or others) "to do the job assigned to" YOU ? Something unspecified, assigned to YOU by Casey et al ?

Some things should not be secret - just as some things should be.

So why ALL this secrecy then ? Unless whatever you were assigned to do WAS indeed a "secret" -- and IF so, why use a public forum for it, anyway ? Makes NO sense !

The existence of many contacts between the NYT and the intelligence agencies is a part of the public record often referred to in public by the TIMES - and Times employees - in print, on television, and elsewhere.

Saying the same thing for the nth time is NO corroboration.

If you look at the record of this thread - I've been very careful about discussing anything about contacts, personnel, or projects - until, after long attempts to avoid them, I've made exceptions in the national interest that I've had an obligation (and the detailed knowledge) to make.

In fact, what the record of this thread shows is the extent to which you've abused your posting privileges, with numerous irrelevant personal and off-topic matters.

What "national interest" ? EVEN if it were so, how do you think this unspecified "national interest" is being served by YOUR actions, implications and insinuations here ?

cantabb - 07:16am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15318 of 15323)

rshow55 - 03:52am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15312 of 15312)

Cont'd .....

NB: Can anyone at NYT, named or not, verify any of rshow55's statements and claims ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Generally quite limited exceptions - and always for reasons that have seemed to be compelling.

Under circumstances of paradigm conflict - of denial - of repression in every psychological sense (and some other senses, too) - and with the stakes for the national welfare very high - I've been justified in what I've done.

More gobbledygook !

"[T]he stakes of national welfare very high" ? What "stakes," what "national welfare" in YOUR hands ? Your self-justification is meaningless !

The NYT has aided and abetted my work to such an extent that we are in nothing like a "simple" adversarial position - no matter who you report to.

More insinuations !

I'm quite sure that "the average reader of The New York Times" would agree about that, by now.

Nonsense ! You have given NOT a single reason yet -- so, the question of anyone 'agreeing' with you is moot ! "The average reader" of NYT is much smarter than you think !

This thread is exceptional in size, in content, in subject matter, in quality - in the form of very many of its postings - ... and some reasonable exceptions need to be made to accomodate the case.

Your personal CASE is NOT the subject of THIS thread.

In human decency - in the national interest - and in the corporate interest of The New York Times, as well.

Sounds like just a big hype !

I'm working to sort things out in the national interest - in my own - and in a way that should be very consistent with the reasonable interests of The New York Times - and you aren't making it easier. In my own judgement - you're serving the interests of the New York Times very poorly.

MORE like your own personal interest !

What "national" or NYT "interest" ? The only consistency I notice is the consistency in YOUR abuse of this Forum toward some undefined personal purpose.

MY questions: NOT making it easier for YOU ?

Either you don't have the answers or you are continuing to evade them -- BOTH are likely to make you feel the way you say you feel [NOT any "easier"]!

I'm NOT here to serve NYT's interests. NOT my concern. Upto them to do whatever they think they need to do.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense