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 - 02:01pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15358 of 15369)

rshow55 - 01:08pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15353 of 15356)

About 1000 posts ago - from October 7 14507-8 ...... The issues connected to the Jayson Blair case are small by comparison to the issues here.

More rambling on nothing of any substance or relevance here, plus the obligatory re-hash of more self-links.

rshow55 - 01:11pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15354 of 15356)

Cantabb , you're making it harder - and because your effort is so extensive .... I have to assume you're doing the bidding of NYT management - or people making an organized effort to impersonate NYT management on a NYT board

Same laughably outlandish 'assumptions' and speculations.

Not enough money or power to make me do someone's else's bidding. Got that ?

I think your efforts are being counterproductive - from the NYT point of view - and from the point of view of the public interest.

Just for asking questions you keep dodging ? For asking you to substantiate your claims and allegations ?

Contrast this with the poster who has been abusing this thread for his personal reasons and problems in his 'quest' for the still-unspecified, still nebulous ! You think THIS serves any one's interest, except YOUR own.

But if employees of the NYT insist on fighting at every step - a negative sum game is all that is likely to happen.

Another not-too-thinly-veiled threat ?

Cantabb - if part of your objective is to slow down my presentation to Sulzberger - you're succeeding. I have to attend to you. I don't think you're serving the NYT or the public well.

NOT intersted in your presentation to Sulzberg (NYT) or CIA or any one else.

Asking you to substantiate your comments and claims -- May be terribly inconvenient for YOU, but this is a public forum and you have been imposing your personal problems on this thread.

You're either very "grateful" for the opportunity provide by NYT, or are accusing it and its employees for various 'misdeeds'.

rshow55 - 02:07pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15359 of 15369)
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.

I'm grateful for some things the NYT has done.

The misdeeds are serious, too.

There is no contradiction.

Cantabb , no I don't get your "not enough money in the world" claim.

cantabb - 02:19pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15360 of 15369)

jorian319 - 01:31pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15355 of 15356)

My $.02 re cantabb - Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just an ordinary guy who has become irritated by repetition and lack of relevant content in this thread? Heck, if I had more time on my hands, I might undertake to hold your feet to the fire in a similar manner ('cept better of course!).

Doesn't take much time or effort to de-construct something that's set to implode, does it ?

On matters that attract my attention, I've a little leeway with time, but I don't think I can spend even 20% of the time you devote on this and other threads.

And, I've been watching this thread for some time. Someone has to do it, right ?

:)

jorian319 - 03:06pm Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15361 of 15369)
The earth spin rate is slowing 2 msc/day as evidenced by the additon of a leap second every 500 days - James "I failed math" Nienhuis

I don't think I can spend even 20% of the time you devote on this and other threads.

I type fast... often outrunning my thoughts. Most of my posts are written while my computer is chugging away on audio files - up/downsampling, limiting, nr etc..

At least that keeps them short... most of the time. Reading takes longer, so I scan some posters' material, scroll by others and only conscientiously read when something piques my interest.

Doesn't take much time or effort to de-construct something that's set to implode, does it ?

That remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic! :-)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense