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 (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!!!

More Messages Recent Messages (20 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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