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 (16345 previous messages)

cantabb - 10:32am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16346 of 16355)

rshow55 - 09:54am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16344 of 16345)

The text on this thread involves a lot of facts - who said what - when - those are facts.

X-said, Y-said, according to You-said. Mere assertions, NOT verifiable evidence.

For a long time, I wasn't given to think I was abusing posting privileges.

You still don't ! Despite numerous reminders.

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.

Just your imagination !

You think the "record" "appears" to show that NYT sought and found "almarst" (Putin or Putin stand-in, according to you) to do what ? Debate with you ? Resolve your problems with CIA, UW (Madison) and/or NYT and its reporters ? Does NYT do it as a matter of policy ? Or did that in your very "special" "exceptional" situation ?

Who do you think gave you a "clear channel" ? What are you suggesting by putting it in quotes ? Someone at NYT (or ?) told you that ?

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.

Why do you think NYT can resolve your personal problems ? Because, supposedly, Casey told you to come through NYT ? And if so, where's evidence (not YOUR statements) for it ?

If the NYT, or bluestar's employer ( assuming they are different ) want to resolve this situation - why not act that way?

In your many posts for so long (setting aside abusing forum privileges, which continued nonetheless), you've NOT specifically described your situation even once, or the resolution you're seeking and from whom ?

So, your repeated charge of posters/people obstructing it (the unknown/unspecified) is ABSURD, to say the least !

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

Your paranoia. Your (and lchic's) accusations that some posters are trying to "injure" you are just as absurd and groundless. Especially when no body knows what your personal problems specifically are -- other than your claimed "house arrest" (Absurd, given your 'free' travel to places, including Chicago, and your ability to continue to post -- even though a clear and continuing "abuse"), and a lack or denial of "permission" for you to "function" (no evidence provided).

With such an attitude, how do you and lchic expect to "do a better job of finding truth" ?

The "things Lchic and [you] have done and worked for on this thread" -- only provide proof of how badly two posters can abuse the forum privileges for how long -- FREELY, and without any reprisals from NYT (the object of their complaints).

rshow55 - 10:51am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16347 of 16355)
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.

300 posts - and three days - ago.

includes some good links - and this:

As for Missile Defense

When things are complicated enough, truth is our only hope of finding our ways to decent solutions. That means we have to find ways to keep people from "filter(ing) out information that might undermine their views."

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force: MD728 ... MD729 MD730 .

Counterchallenge: MD764 .

Comment and response: MD780 ... MD783-784 ...

MD84 .

Betraying Humanity By BOB HERBERT

. . . ultimately the many tribes that inhabit this earth are going to have to figure out a way to forge some workable agreements on how we treat one another.

Some patterns cantabb and bluestar are showing stand in the way of that - and many, many "tribes" need to get clearer about that. - some points long made on this thread bear repeating. There are plenty of jobs that are impossible. We need to find things that work.

bluestar23 - 11:38am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16348 of 16355)

"We need to find things that work."

STOP your stupid, inane, endless REPEATING of EVERYTHING......Just SHUT UP, Showalter!!!

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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