New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (16341 previous messages)

cantabb - 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 York Times.

Imagining things again. Can't "do a good job of finding truth" this way, can you ? May be, that's how you think you can!

Your obsession and your paranoia -- NOT a solution. Of ANYTHING.

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 situation ?

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.

cantabb - 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 displayed.

Abusing posting privileges is NOT the way to do it -- NOT the way to resolve your "personal" situation either.

rshow55 - 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.

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 that way?

If your purpose is injuring me - what do you think I feel morally obligated and practically obligated to do?

cantabb - 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 sometime.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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