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 (15722 previous messages)

cantabb - 04:16am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15723 of 15733)

lchic - 03:11am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15722 of 15722)

Your "Ignore" function is On-again, I see !

Cantabulator ... Alex is saying there's a culture to this board ... you're a newby here ... that's why you're raking the ashes to parse together the dots and the dashes.

"Newby" ? As the other 'regular', Gisterme had also said.

The "culture" to this board is: Generalities on anything and everything (from the so-called dots to the faux-Zen meaning of life), conspiracies theories, Personal problems & endless RE-HASH (which is NOT the same as "Raking the ashes" or raking someone over coal).

What he said was ... Let the NUKES fail - GOOD!

Is that what you think he meant to say ? May be you can make sense of Almarst statement -- I can't divine that!

[If you can make sense of rshow, the rest is easy, I guess].

Let posters speak for themselves !

If they succeed the world will be blown to pieces ... if those in control ... aren't whole!

Did you tell NK, China, Russia & others ?

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation." The question is: Would you be able to recognize it through the FOG ?

lchic - 04:29am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15724 of 15733)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Chum ... Alex ain't dumb

He said don't put a fool in control

----

Showalter allocates much to the mind

He'd like us to leave the psycho behind

-----

Cantabb all those dots and those dashes ... the morse code with hashes ... give grabs that you fail to perceive ... try conceptual retraining ... a sort of rebrain-ing ... then no newbie will you be .. NO! Indeed!

-----

cantabb - 05:11am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15725 of 15733)

lchic - 04:29am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15724 of 15724)

Chum ... Alex ain't dumb He said don't put a fool in control

Who said he's "dumb." I'm glad you divined THAT from his comment.

Showalter allocates much to the mind

Allocates WHAT "to the mind" ? No indication yet. Can not even answer what he thinks he has been doing here for 3 years. No evidence either of his supposedly global achievements and saving thousands of lives.

He'd like us to leave the psycho behind

What "psycho" behind ? He may have told YOU, NOT on this thread, not that I can recall.

Cantabb all those dots and those dashes ... the morse code with hashes ... give grabs that you fail to perceive ... try conceptual retraining ... a sort of rebrain-ing ...

What "dots" and "dashes" ? The nebulous ones you've been trying to connect in a black box ? I saw NO conceptualization of anything here yet. Confused unfocused thinking is NOT it. You're imagining things again. Get a grip !

then no newbie will you be .. NO! Indeed!

Oh, as gisterme said. How long do you think it'should take to make any sense of this SLOP ? Slop remains slop, and smells with time !

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation": What "TRUTH" ? The one you see after a few swigs of the "Syrup" ?

Time for you to put your "IGNORE" tab ON-again !

lchic - 06:40am Oct 27, 2003 EST (# 15726 of 15733)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Spinning the Tubes

How Australian intelligence was seized upon on by the CIA, spun and gilded, then presented to the world as the best evidence that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s976015.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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