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 (16358 previous messages)

cantabb - 01:55pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16359 of 16365)

rshow55 - 12:22pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16355 of 16358)

More of your personal problems. Nothing to do with MD, and nothing on what you think you and lchic have been doing on this forum for this long and what do you two think you have accomplished to continue to make the claim you have so far.

What do I want to talk about? As a minimum - I want to discuss - face to face with someone "in the system" - how I'm to actually use the response I have - and how the NYT expects to respond to the things I'm likely to say.

Ask NYT if they'll accept YOUR conditions !

My guess is that after a very short time - we could sort something out that permitted me to actually work administratively - in the world as it is - in ways that would be "win-win" for everybody - with very little trouble to the NYT - a lot less than somebody's going to in the 473 postings posted here since I got an email from a NYT line guy.

My guess would be different from yours, but that's not relevant. What you do or want to do with NYT is of NO interest or concern to "average NYT readers" !

If there were problems doing that directly - there might be some intermediate conversations - through some people we might both respect at the U of Wisconsin, for instance.

You find that out.

But I have to be able to function in detail - and have a right to ask for enough clarification to actually permit that.

Who's stopping your functioning ?

None apparently at NYT, as far as I can see -- because you continue to post lot of personal and totally off-topic material here (even highly accusatory of NYT and others) --- with considerable impunity !

What "clarification," what "permission" and from whom ? From NYT ? From CIA ? Whatever, NOT through this Forum.

You have been abusing the forum, and trying to exploit your posting privileges toward resolving your still unspecified (but alluded to a number of times) and for you own personal ends.

If that's not permitted - and I'm unable to function because of the place the NYT organization has put me - - I'll react - and try to do so in a way that "the average reader of the NYT" would approve of.

You have NOT specified what place NYT organization has put you in, where you are so "unable to function" ? Neither has NYT (through its Forum moderators) thought enough of your charges to present their position on this Forum. [Actually, both of NO concern to "average NYT reader" !]

To get a win-win resolution there needs to be more conversation than there has been - in a basis that this thread doesn't permit. Face to face - you can see how people are uncomfortable - and in a little time - it often happens that people can come up with solutions tha they actually like - that actually make them comfortable. I'd be more comfortable, for instance, if I was able to write a really fine thank you letter to the New York Times - but if we're at knife-point - I can't do that.

That "win-win" is a pipe-dream. At best it can only be a compromise.

Rest of your angst: take it up with NYT, not with its "average reader."

People often come to good deals - especially when no money needs to change hands. And this time, I'd prefer not to have any money change hands. ( A big reason not to get a lawyer involved, if that's possible. )

Take it up with NYT.

I'm looking for a good solution.

Who is NOT ?

Not only for me - but for me and for lchic - not only for the NYT.

cantabb - 01:56pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16360 of 16365)

rshow55 - 12:22pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16355 of 16358)


Not only for me - but for me and for lchic - not only for the NYT. [emphasis added]

What kind of "solution" are you looking for a problem that does NOT exist? lchic has said recently that she never brought or mentioned her personal problems here -- she was trying to make a pointed distinction from you. Did she have anything to do with Casey-Eisenhower or CIA etc ? She said, except for one misunderstood occasion, she wasn't even banned from NYT ?

Win-win solutions do happen. I'm shooting for one here. Who knows? Might happen this time.

In your dreams, they might happen. Unless by this much abused 'win-win', you imply: having your cake and eating it too. Seen that in real life ?

With such paranoia-driven confusion, generalities and lack of focus, I doubt if you can find "truth" about anything, let alone about a situation/problem you can't even define and specify.

"Can [you & lchic] do a better job of finding truth?" Everybody thinks they CAN, but (given the baggage) can you & lchic achieve anything at all re a situation/problem you still have not defined or specified ? That's an entirely different oquestion.

I suggest: FIRST define the problem, then seek ways and means to try to resolve it ! Solutions for non-existent (or undefined) problems are hard to imagine and harder to come by (and in silver platter)! But dream on !

cantabb - 01:59pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16361 of 16365)

rshow55 - 12:48pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16358 of 16360)

Seems to me I wrote a pretty straight response.

See how "straight" it came across [my 2-part post above].

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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