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
(16677 previous messages)
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
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
- 05:54pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (#
16680 of 16696)
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
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