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
(16631 previous messages)
- 11:36am Nov 6, 2003 EST (#
16632 of 16664)
rshow55 - 11:16am Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16629 of 16630)
I have some ideas. There are some things I'm
very clear about - and I'm much less clear about some
Nothing unusual, is it ?
Both lchic and I have many motives - as
you'd expect for full human beings.
Yeah, some you're "clear about" and some "less" so.
I would like to be able to set up something
very much like AEA again - and do it honestly - and work
with Lchic in that format. I'd like to be able to do that
with people involved in AEA fully informed, and satisfied to
the extent that was reasonably possible.
Go do it, if you think you can !
Is this your motive ?
In ways that were reasonably satisfactory to
my wife, her husband, the New York Times, other members of
families involved, the federal government, and other people
more-or-less connected. In ways that most people at the UN,
if they happened to notice, might think fair. To get those
things done, lchic's identity has to be clear - and what
she's done, and why, also needs to be clarified in some
Back to the same set of self-defeating conditions, eh ?
Your 'plans' are your own, nothing to do with NYT, federal
government and UN ! As to lchic's affiliation and her motives,
no body knows. May be just to "partner" with you ?
I'm absolutely clear of this. Lchic and I
are partners, and have been for years now - and the
partnership has been a vital part of my life - as my
partnership for many years with Steve Kline was a vital part
of my life. My partnership with Steve was more convenient
and conventional in a number of ways because Steve was male.
You mentioned this dozens of times. NO significance or
relevance, here ?
I'm absolutely clear about something else.
Lchic is the most valuable mind, in the ways that matter to
me, of anyone "that I've never been near". We've gotten
close in ways that count, just the same. And she is
academically and intellectually as ambitious, and as solidly
grounded, as anyone I've ever known or known about.
THAT is your personal opinion. I am not blind to the
reciprocity. Nothing to do with the Forum or the "average
readers of NYT."
She worries about 'world peace and
stability' a very great deal, too.
ASK her to join the back of untold millions around the
world, including some in Australia.
"Can [you & lchic] do a better job of finding
YES, perhaps, IF it comes out of a "dispenser" after
pressing the RED flashing button marked in bold, "TRUTH" !
Till then dream on...
- 12:36pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (#
16633 of 16664)
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.
Comments on Cantabb's comments
Cantabb: "Back to the same set of
self-defeating conditions, eh ?"
I think they are essential conditions for a
working relationship. And conditions that have to be
accomodated in an arrangement that can be
stabilized. That looks possible to me - but it is
another example of a kind of problem I've been working on here
-- The question is how you produce a "win win" solution
under circumstances where negative sum outcomes are also
possible, and instabilities are a problem.
My guess is that's a problem that interests "the average
reader of the NYT. "
Cantabb: "Your 'plans' are your own,
nothing to do with NYT, federal government and UN !
They are connected in the ways they happen to be - in the
particular circumstances involved.
I said "My partnership with Steve was more convenient and
conventional in a number of ways because Steve was male."
Cantabb: You mentioned this dozens of
times. NO significance or relevance, here ?
For interpersonal relations that work - things that
actually matter have to be accomodated - especially when, for
basic reasons, stakes and emotions are high.
There's a strong argument for confidentiality - and for
decouplings that say " X has nothing to do with Y " - and for
"iron walls" - a quote from MIT deals with the point. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Y8RtbMwOVVm.1828912@.f28e622/16480
" Reviews of this nature are time consuming
because of their thoroughness and their complexity. They are
also confidential for the simple reason that the reputations
of the individuals are at stake. Unless and until it is
determined that the allegations are justified, it would be
unfair to comment on any aspect of the review. Furthermore,
public comments before the facts are known might damage the
" MIT will continue to honor the
confidentiality of the inquiry because of our commitment to
due process and fundamental fairness."
One can give much weight to those considerations - and
still worry about issues of logical structure and
manipulation. Under the usages MIT is using - it makes some
sense to think about logical analogs of the
Interactive Graphic: How the Partnerships
Worked available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html
If people can have private conversations that others know
nothing about - and wish to manipulate the picture to be
presented of a circumstance - there are as many ways to bend
the truth as Enron found to shuffle accounting - and more.
These shell games have to be subject to some checking -
if anything is to be checkable at all - and if any really
complex cooperative sequences are to be consistently
There are strong arguments for confidentiality and social
fictions. There are very strong arguments for openness
, too. You need both stances - and reasonable decisions
about how to switch from one to the other - that people
can agree on well enough to do their work and work together.
There's no contradiction at all - but it takes care.
(31 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums