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 (15786 previous messages)

cantabb - 09:33am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15787 of 15798)

rshow55 - 09:09am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15781 of 15782) 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.

Negotation links from the Missile Defense thread between 5:05 pm and 10:45 pm - October 23, 2003. Set out a simple approach - all I asked............. On a "game that is not a game" - stabilization of complex cooperations. 15559 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lP3LbugBSiy.5361510@.f28e622/17272

Didn't you just post these the same 40-some links ?

A simple acknowlegement of what happened, to the degree the TIMES knows it and can say so without revealing names - would be very useful to me if the NYT could make that acknowlegement, and make it honestly. If I had this information - it would be easier for me to ask for some clarifications and considerations from the government that I believe I deserve - and it would be easier to explain much about the way my life has gone since that correspondence initiated in 1999. If this particular request isn't possible, I'll understand.

Once again, YOUR personal problems NOT relevant here. If you've al;ready communicated all this to Sulzberger (NYT), why re-hash here ?

Does anybody doubt

I don't know the "facts" of your 'case' -- NOR is it my inyterest to know your personal details! Just because lchic knows and doesn't "doubt" anything you say, it doesn't mean others have to feel the same way !

fredmoore - 09:47am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15788 of 15798)

Cantabb,

I am delighted that you think you own all the words in the dictionary ... it just proves my point about you ... for the Nth time. Got a few words stuck in your craw eh? How boring, tragic and farcical!

cantabb - 09:47am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15789 of 15798)

rshow55 - 09:12am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15783 of 15787)

More on your personal problems !

Does anybody doubt that I'd bend over backwards to give the NYT all the credit I honestly could (a lot) if my needs were met as well? And meet any of their needs that they could explain to me?

Better ask lchic and fredmoore, your loyal followers !

Does anybody doubt that the NYT has a serious interest in this thread - and an interest that is intertwined with things concerning me?

Who knows what's NYT interest in this thread ? What interest do you think it'll have concerning YOU ? NOT a concern of anyone else, EXCEPT you !

Whatever it is, it doesn't concern discussion on THIS thread !

Here's a general fact. I'd be overjoyed to sort the "MD board" mess out in a way that was to the maximum possible advantage to the NYT. We don't have to be in a conflict - but for any resolution that isn't a conflict - I have to be dealt with as a full human being - for the purposes of the limited communication involved.

You mean the "mess" YOU and your 'world asset' created (and still create) here ?

Whatever the NYT "advantage" (let alone "maximum possible"), didn't you communicate it to Sulzbeger (NYT) ? If so, why inflict this on the posters here ?

It seems it's YOU alone, imagining yourself "in conflict." Have seen no other evidence here. What "resolution" of an imagined "conflict" ?

cantabb - 09:53am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15790 of 15798)

fredmoore - 09:47am Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15788 of 15789)

Cantabb, I am delighted that you think you own all the words in the dictionary ... it just proves my point about you ... for the Nth time. Got a few words stuck in your craw eh? How boring, tragic and farcical!

Just that it's continually amusing to see you repeat the same you have just been told. School-yard behavior !

The ONLY thing this proves is you still are NOT willing to step out of your school-yard.

If a few words, as you say, are supposedly "stuck in [my] craw," HOW "boring, tragic and farcical" you think it's for YOU to keep parroting the same back to me ?

How really pathetic !

bluestar23 - 12:01pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15791 of 15798)

"If you want to feel useful, ask some sensible questions about KAEP."

No, Mr. Moore, if YOU want to feel useful, ask some sensible questions or contribute to the MD discussion. I usually bring in a few fresh links here every day at least..

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