New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(15666 previous messages)
rshow55
- 10:20am Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15667 of 15670) 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.
Here's a basic standard:
" What would this look like, and how would
it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW
YORK TIMES ? "
Not that it would be. But there are community standards. I
think everybody involved here wants to meet those standards. I
know that I do.
Cantabb said this: "And, had you written THAT
"short" "well-crafted" letter to him and called him, as you
had been planning to do, you would have returned from NYC by
now, after a visit to CIA, FBI, Rummy, GW, Rice and the whole
gang-- and their stand-ins."
The NYT, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA and the White House couldn't
possibly work that way. The leaders of big institutions
couldn't work that way - and shouldn't try to.
Good solutions ought to be as simple as possible (though no
simpler) and fit the circumstances.
Leaders have complicated jobs and deal with
complicated organizational problems and
interconnections. To get something that fits into an
organization takes care - and enough time so that what matters
is known, and people who know enough to judge can become
comfortable with what is to be done.
I hope to sort out a situation with the NYT that meets NYT
needs as well as possible - in the nature of the case - the
best possible circumstances for the TIMES, from where we are,
would also be big wins for me. Because the circumstances
are complex we need not be in a conflict situation about
anything that matters much to either the NYT or to me. It
isn't necessarily true that meeting my needs costs the NYT
anything - at least if " the average reader or stockholder of
The New York Times" might be looking. Meeting my needs might
be something that "the average reader" would be proud to have
the NYT do. At the same time I have to ask the following
question - and in this situation, for the short time it would
take to sort things out from here, the NYT does, too.
Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the
truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. What
would he need to be able to leave this board and function?
and a related question:
Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the
truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. Under
what circumstances is he crippled in the ways that matter
for function?
Of course I have to ask analogous questions about the
TIMES' needs - though of course the stakes for the TIMES are
much smaller than they are for me - and I would be happy to
accomodate NYT needs that don't conflict with my own.
Arrangements that fit NYT institutional needs and also fit
my own - in ways that most people would say I deserve - are
fairly easy. Some options have been discussed at length on
this board - and to something that looks close to a simple
closure. Others resolutions are possible. With limited but
real rapport - resolutions that maximize the NYT advantage,
and satisfy my needs well, too - look easy. Negative sum
results only need happen if there is an operational decision
to see that I remain crippled in the ways that matter to me
for action. I don't see how that meets anybody's interest.
Any answer that is a sensible "win-win" solution between me
and the NYT will put me in fair position for dealing with the
federal government without any need for institutional
involvement from the NYT - though such help might be easy for
the TIMES, and of course I'd appreciate it.
Call you for WHAT and WHY ?
In case anybody on NYT staff wanted to move
things faster than they're moving, they could call me. For a
stable solution that does not break up in a mess or a
fight - I think things are moving fine - but I'd be very,
very pleas
rshow55
- 10:21am Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15668 of 15670) 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.
In case anybody on NYT staff wanted to move
things faster than they're moving, they could call me. For a
stable solution that does not break up in a mess or a
fight - I think things are moving fine - but I'd be very,
very pleased to get a call - and if I had that call - I'd
come to NYT as fast as a meeting could be arranged.
rshow55
- 10:22am Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15669 of 15670) 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 hoping, by the end of the day, to send a short
email to the "top dog" at the TIMES - with links available so
that others can deal with something that he'd be too busy to
attend to.
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|