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.
(15936 previous messages)
rshow55
- 11:49am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15937 of 15961) 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.
Noticing how fast people respond on this thread when I post
- some people seem to care a good deal.
jorian319
- 11:51am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15938 of 15961)
OK then...
WARNING: The following was written without a
single though as to its meaning, emulating an Rshow post in
syntax and structure, as well as in its vacuity. Any
resemblance to something that makes sense is strictly
coincidental.
In some situations, there are problems that can only be
confronted by a concerted effort to focus on the win-win
aspect of proposed solutions. Solutions must solve, and the
definition of "solve" must be agreed upon by those for whom
the effort is important. Without such agreement, the solution
will be unstable and likely not scalable to the application as
required by constrictive circumstance. Unstable solutions are
well known to blow up in people's faces from time to time,
often at great cost to innocents to whom neither the problem
nor its solution is important. Discussion of the relationship
of those working on solutions to those tring to focus on
defining the problem is itself problematic for the third party
- the one injured by actions taken by people either involved
in the process of definition or in pursuit of the win-win
solution required for amenable resolution. This human dynamic
is seen to be ubiquitous throughout every arena wherein
conflict seeks an equilibrium instead of real resolution,
which can be recognized by a good faith examination of the
various aspects of thoughtfulness that reflects the genesis of
the problem itself. For the past several centuries, since my
intitial involvement with Descartes in the development of
Principles of Philosophy, certain parties with whom I hade
contracted verbally have failed to deliver on their parts of
the underlying agreement. I am being held hostage in my own
skull and am seeking resolution through a seance whereby I
might get a face-to-face meeting with the perpetrator(s), one
of whom I suspect to be part of the Bluestar clan, which I
have long thought to have obsconded with the balance of the
Descartes estate. There are principles at stake, as well as
students and teachers, and this should be important for all
readers of this forum to keep in mind as we pursue the greater
good for Humankind, and, hopefully long overdue justice for
the wrongs done me in the past.
</Rshow>
fredmoore
- 11:53am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15939 of 15961)
cantabb - 08:14am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15870 of 15925)
"Want another shovel ? "
Now cantabb, I remind you that such questions are not 'well
documented comments' but are pure barnyard aspersions. If you
committed youself to upbraiding Rshow with 'well documented
comments' only and left out the same type of aspersions as the
above then I would not 'pursue' you. On the other hand I enjoy
the odd schoolyard lampoon as I find it entertaining even if
directed at me. What I detest about your lampooning and
upbraiding of Rshow is your patent dishonesty. This is why I
coined 3 words specially for YOU. They fit you like a glove
and I am delighted that you don't understand them because it
makes you look all the more like that Foghorn Leghorn
caricature that you have become.
Hipocracy -- attempts at ruling a forum by shooting
from the hip.
Biggotry -- attempting to make oneself biGGer by
abusing others and then denying that kind of behaviour is
stricly out of the barnyard.
Chukkle -- the effect Cantabb has on people where
you don't know whether to laugh or whether to throw up.
PS Thanks for the unkind offer of the shovels ... but you
will need them as your hen-house of cards continues to
collapse into a big hole.
PS2 In advance of your usual dim-witted deconstructive
evasion of the above truth, let me say this:
Bwa ha ha ... and that ain't calling for Uncle ...
it's the sound of laughter as you begin to struggle to find a
'reason' to post on this forum! Are you aware for example that
the number of Off-Topic posts has nearly doubled since your
apperance. You stimulate the very worst of what you state you
are trying to stop here.
PS3 One more time I reiterate: My main purpose here is to
explore in an entertaining manner, alternatives for missile
defence which involve the willing and enthusiastic cooperation
of every individual on the planet. This through a KAEP (Kyoto
Alternative Energy Protocol), where the most important need of
all people (low ENTROPY/energy) is addressed in a methodical
way that will put and end to current world inequities which is
the very reason we need defences.
bluestar23
- 11:54am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15940 of 15961)
Good work, Jorian!
bluestar23
- 12:00pm Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15941 of 15961)
"Noticing how fast people respond on this thread when I
post - some people seem to care a good deal."
But not about your "work" !!! About your terrible abuse of
the New York Times posting policy and your awful
spamming...SHUT UP!!!
(20 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|