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 (16065 previous messages)

lchic - 04:02pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16066 of 16222)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Six billion people have 'theoretical access' to this thread.

jorian319 - 04:05pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16067 of 16222)

Maybe the OZ lexicon separates us by common language.

I assume that loonie took exception to Blue's use of the word "insane", applied to describe Rshow55. "Insane" is still in common use - as a derogatory term, as a legal term and as a clinical term. Loonie's mistake is thinking that it only applies to Rshow as a derogatory term. I'd argue that it is also very likely an accurate clinical assessment.

cantabb - 04:05pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16068 of 16222)

lchic - 03:02pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16058 of 16062)

I checked the post i reposted (above)

I see a ref to Bluestar ... you're confusing Blue with Showalter? ...

I’ve just taken another look.

You complained about my comments in this post [cantabb - 07:54am Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16039 of 16062)], which was in response to yours [lchic - 06:53am Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16033 of 16034)].

In one section between the dotted lines you mentioned:

-----

“Bluey asked -- why was i on the board - without explain his presence.

The board is here for those with opinions - 6 billion out there !”

-----

To your comment, which is very genera, [ “The board is here for those with opinions - 6 billion out there!” ], I said:

"Opinion, yes, BUT NOT personal beef and unspecified personal problems ! Besides, there is NOT just ONE forum for everything anyone wants to drag in. Say something ON-topic."

Here, I am NOT referring to YOUR problems, and I’m NOT confusing them with (or for) rshow’s, or rshow for Blue-y. I’m NOT even referring to “Bluey” or what you say he/she asked you.

I responded to YOUR general comment [opinion of 6 B people] in a similar vein.

Your illocial-logic's going nowhere ....

Based on the above, it looks like you really NO basis for complaint. I see YOUR “illocial-logic's going nowhere ....”

And, later on, in this post [cantabb - 02:21pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16055 of 16062)}, I have already addressed your comments in: lchic - 01:52pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16053 of 16062)

No further discussion is needed for what's quite clear.

I stand by my comments.

jorian319 - 04:06pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16069 of 16222)

Six billion people have 'theoretical access' to this thread.

Over a long enough period of time, maybe. If any significan fraction of that number of people tried to access this thread in a given day, the server would quit. Heck - it quits when three people try to get in here!

lchic - 04:13pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16070 of 16222)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Jorian i'm looking for the post where Blue affords 'you personally' the generosity of 'his choice lexicon' ... why is he discriminating against you so?

cantabb - 04:23pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16071 of 16222)

lchic - 04:02pm Oct 31, 2003 EST (# 16066 of 16069)

Six billion people have 'theoretical access' to this thread.

I understand the distinction you're trying to make from your sweeping statement, but THIS is different from what you had stated earlier: "The board is here for those with opinions - 6 billion out there !”

Regardless, you can't have the "opinions" on everything posted on "this thread" on MD. This is what's still implied in both versions.

You (and rshow) drag all kinds of things, many totally unrelated to the specific focus of the forum. You think this should also be good enough, even for the "theoretical access," to the rest of humanity. You are trying to justify your own abuse of this forum.

My response to your 1st version applies equally to the 2nd too !

More Messages Recent Messages (151 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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