New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(16341 previous messages)
- 09:28am Nov 3, 2003 EST (#
16342 of 16347)
rshow55 - 08:59am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16331 of 16335)
Seven postings in a very few minutes - all
from people who assure me that they do not work for The New
Imagining things again. Can't "do a good job of finding
truth" this way, can you ? May be, that's how you think you
Your obsession and your paranoia -- NOT a solution. Of
If they don't - that's interesting. If they
do - that's interesting, too.
Wow. What logic. "Win-Win" ?
Some things need to be clarified - and if
that can't be done - there can be no closure that works.
You've "clarified" NOTHING yet. "Closure" of what ? Your
problems ? NOT relevant here.
That's a basic fact about stability in all
sorts of complex circumstances.
SO....? Is there any "basic fact" in your
rshow55 - 09:00am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16332 of 16335)
Cantabb - I'm taking my time - and since you
don't work for the New York Times - and since your work is
mainly to "muddy the water" - I have other interests besides
answering you instantly.
How can anyone "muddy the water" that have been muddied
constantly by yourself, with able assistance from lchic.
Your poster ID paranoia acting up again ?
You are NOT required to answer my posts, rshow55 ! Besides,
whatever you post is mostly NON-responsive, any way !
Like taking my dog out, just now.
Don't have to keep us posted with your routine, you know !
She's asleep, and he posts and walks the dog.
- 09:46am Nov 3, 2003 EST (#
16343 of 16347)
rshow55 - 09:14am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16336 of 16342)
Bluestar23 , I'm brave enough, and careful
enough - to get some of your attention.
Yeah, with ALL that burden of world peace and saving lives
! So honored (humored) to get some of your 'attention'.
What, exactly, do I owe you? Or Cantabb?
Why do you feel that, any way ?
I have obligations to some other people and
organizations. But surely not to you.
Who says you HAVE ?
Straw man !
And if you want to "call me Ishmael" that's
fine with me.
Why would any one bother ? [Why this nauseatingly
repetitious reference ?]
rshow55 - 09:17am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16337 of 16342)
Cantabb: "The world has gotten lot more
complex, technlogically and politically, since 1961."
rshow: But some key unsolved problems remain
- and lchic and I have made some progress.
You and lchic have produced NO evidence of it yet ! Or, for
that matter, of what you think you have been working on so
hard for ?
Enough progress, for instance - to get quite
a lot of interest, first and last, from The New York Times
Nothing you can substantiate. Repeated referencing to your
own unsubstantiated claims IS NOT 'evidence'.
IF you can not find "truth" without factual evidence for
it, how can you ever "do a better job of finding truth" with
continued lack of the same ?
Can't even do it with a "truth dispenser" if you don't know
what it (the evidence) looks like and can NOT find it in your
neighborhood, even if marked in bold, and prominently
Abusing posting privileges is NOT the way to do it -- NOT
the way to resolve your "personal" situation either.
- 09:54am Nov 3, 2003 EST (#
16344 of 16347)
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.
The text on this thread involves a lot of facts - who said
what - when - those are facts.
For a long time, I wasn't given to think I was abusing
posting privileges. For example - after posting a lot here -
with a lot of help from lchic - the NYT appears from
the record to have gone off and found Almarst - and
after some conversation - I was given a "clear channel" to
post this over a long time. http://www.mrshowalter.net/PutinBriefing.html
Something I appreciated.
But given my personal situation - I needed to talk to
someone from the NYT face to face - let that be known many
times - and it has been refused many times. That isn't
something I appreciated.
If the NYT, or bluestar's employer ( assuming they
are different ) want to resolve this situation - why not act
If your purpose is injuring me - what do you think I feel
morally obligated and practically obligated to
- 09:56am Nov 3, 2003 EST (#
16345 of 16347)
Bluestar: I'm glad you chose not to "Ignore" -- against
gratuitous and fervent recommendations to you by some posters
-- the same posters who not only took the intiative and
trouble (no body in the right mind would) to talk to rshow55
on the telephone for hours and invited him (repeatedly) for a
face-to-face meeting. Only to post then their bitter regrets
for having done that, over several posts and for quite
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums