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
(16590 previous messages)
- 04:31pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (#
16591 of 16611)
rshow55 - 03:59pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16589 of 16590)
I'm writing a response to a phone
conversation earlier - and doing it carefully. Feeling good
You think we really need to know everything about your day,
every feeling ?
Have to worry - for it seems to me that
everything I'd hoped to accomplish on this board might get
done. Not exactly as I'd expected, but not too badly. Some
while ago I wrote a note that included this:
IF you wanted to 'USE' this forum as a dumping ground for
your personal problems, bioghraphical details, spiralling
self-referencing links, conspiracy theories, paranoia etc --
and a rehash of the whole thing a number of times, I think you
can relax: THAT "Mission" was "Accomplished" ! [Too bad
that of GWB and his stand-in poster, wasn't ].
All things come to an end, sooner or later. This thread had
far, far outlived any hint of potential if it ever had.
It appears that there will be no face to
face meeting - and that one isn't needed in this case. I
hope that the paragraph above will work out in essentials,
You were insisting on a face-to-face meeting, were you not,
and had several conditions attached ? NOW, never mind ?
.... with this modification: I'm hoping that
the Missile Defense thread - after one or a few phone
conversations referring to and clarifying correspondence and
an exchange of short letters, (one of which seems fine now)
will clearly demonstrate how to solve the TECHNICAL problems
of negotiating stable outcomes to complex games involving
both competition and cooperation. In a case big enough to
study, but not too big. With real stakes, but not stakes too
high to permit intelligent function of intelligent people.
What this thread shows -- and amply -- is how a thread can
be hijacked, how to continually abuse posting privileges. And,
not much of anything else !
Maybe that's really going to be possible.
One thing I'm looking forward to is a chance
to comfortably and safely write a very warm thank-you letter
to The New York Times. In that hope, I'm writing carefully -
and trying not to screw up.
Do that then, instead of wasting time and effort on
- 07:51pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (#
16592 of 16611)
What about those chunks posting in 'science in the news'.
- 08:30pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (#
16593 of 16611)
In legislative practice, the parliamentary tactic used in
the United States Senate by a minority of the
senators—sometimes even a single senator—to delay or prevent
parliamentary action by talking so long that the majority
either grants concessions or withdraws the bill. Unlike the
House of Representatives, in which rules limit speaking time,
the Senate allows unlimited debate on a bill. Speeches can
be completely irrelevant to the issue.
The word is derived from the Spanish filibustero
(“freebooting”) and originally described piratical
16th-century privateers; it came into English usage to
designate any irregular military adventurer, such as the
Americans who took part in Latin-American insurrections in the
1850s. Filibuster was in use in the political sense by the
mid-1800s. In 1957 Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina
talked for more than 24 hours, the longest individual
filibuster on record, as part of an unsuccessful attempt by
Southern senators to obstruct civil-rights legislation.
Invoking cloture on debate (i.e., limiting or ending a debate
by calling for a vote) and holding round-the-clock sessions to
tire the minority are measures used to defeat a filibuster.
If it's good enough for the US Senate then ..... it ought
to be good enough for Cantathinkofanythingofhisown.
Filibustering can be legitimately defeated of course, but
the intent to defeat ought not eliminate the recourse to
FILIBUSTERING itself. Filibustering remains a great tradition
in US politics and on forums such as this.
- 08:50pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (#
16594 of 16611)
Farewell Bbbuck old friend
I guess we have come to an end
It's been a bumpy ride
with little to hide
and I'm really not an ag..itator.
and a poke in the eye for Mme D
and with luck .... I'll catch you later.
(17 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums