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.

rshow55 - 05:47pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16678 of 16696)
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.

Almarst sometimes asks "who is the terrorist?" - and it occurs to me that it is a question you might think about, Jorian.

Jayson Blair knew how afraid everybody was - and how easy it made things for someone who wanted to bend the truth.

The NYT is so feared - has been so successful as a bully when it is challenged - that easy things to resolve are converted to confrontations.

Not in the interest of the TIMES.

NOT a credit to Sulzberger.

cantabb - 05:53pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16679 of 16696)

rshow55 - 05:04pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16670 of 16674)

On the question of who is posting - the avoidance of a simple solution not so long ago is worth remembering - and I think my comments hold with redoubled force now.

Your paranoia in over-drive ! In the final days.

rshow55 - 06:20pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15515

If I had a letter acknowledging something that the NYT either knows - or could easily find out - I could function pretty well.

NYT "knows" what ? What ever it is, why do you think it'd be so crucial to your ability to "function pretty well" ?

Some of the things that have happened to me that seem to have involved NYT employees - including people who have said they were NYT employees - or said things that implied that very strongly - have been pretty rough - and officers of the NYT would know that.

NYT is NOT the goliath you think it is out to destroy YOU, and no one else ! You presume much too much !

Do I have no right to find out who these people are - because they're associated with the sainted New York Times?

You don't a "right" to find out who the other posters are.

Unless other posters also have a right to find out your and lchic's affiliation and your individual motives/vested interests ?

I'm not sure everybody who puts faith in The New York Times - or its officers - would agree to that.

Forget about others. Think of yourself, and the validity of your assumption : that NYT controls your fate as well as everything else !

We're dealing here with issues a lot more important than anything involved with the Jayson Blair case, it seems to me.

Two different issues. And, you are NOT even an issue !

I bet I could find some people and institutions to agree to that - in a pinch.

You do that !

Why not a "win-win" situation, instead of a fight? Even if you happen not to like me?

You're the one obsessed with your pre-teen and teen-age fights (as described by your official biographer, lchic). No one else. Most of us know all too well that if we put forward an idea, we'll receive all kinds of comments and criticism which we'd have to address (i.e., NOT "fighting") to establish and retain our credibility in our ideas.

Why not be honest ?

Ask yourself !

I asked: Do I have no right to find out who these people are - because they're associated with the sainted New York Times? and that seems a good question.

In fact, you don't have asny "right." If you HAD a "right," then I and other posters would have the same right to find out your affiliation (if any), and of lchic: both of you have harassed other posters for such information for a very long time already.

But I ask a weaker question. Do I have no right to find out that these people are employed by the New York Times - because the sainted New York Times is above the usual responsibilities expected of others?

See if you can address the comments raised by posters. Personal info NOT a prerequisite for posting here to reveal your identity (NYT has that information, btw)?

rshow55 - 06:36pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 155

Note content - but also the poem - and its date - I've been working ont win-win negotiations and how to get them to closure - for a long time.

NOT relevant here, or to anything on MD, and what you think you are working on....

My core purpose is to keep promises I made a long time ago - and if the New York Times took reasonable action I in its own interest as well as in mine - that would be something that would enhance society.

YOUR personal matter. Your slavish obedience your concern. NOT relevant here.

You have NOT done anything BUT abuse this thread -- this does not "enhance society."

Or - if i

cantabb - 05:54pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16680 of 16696)

rshow55

Or - if it turned out I was lying - on things that actually mattered for function - the NYT would not be without resources to go after me.

NOT any conern of the "average NYT reader"! Deal with NYT, lying or not ! IF you do so here, you'll NOT have to wait for even 15 minutes.

Now, we almost got to closure on something less onerous to the Times - and when I asked for some feedback over the phone - got this most recent explosion of posts instead.

I say, deal with it. Gross abuse ofg this forum by you and lchic IS what seems to have led NYT to make this decision-- LONG overdue, IMO.

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense