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 - 06:18pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16694 of 16702)
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.

The difference, for me, is that lchic posts a lot of good stuff.

( In fairness, Jorian's stuff is often interesting and amusing, too. )

But if you ask me to respect the authority of bluestar - I don't feel the tiniest reason to do so - beyond the value of his postings - which have usually been undistinguished, in my opinion. Certainly undistinguished beside lchic's !

( Or certainly in my opinion, anyway. )

I don't feel the tiniest reason to respect the "orders" of bluestar .

rshow55 - 06:20pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16695 of 16702)
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.

Or, on balance, based on this postings as bluestar - to respect him as a decent human being.

That's a reason I hope I'm wrong about a guess I made about a line guy I've gotten some correspondance from.

rshow55 - 06:23pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16696 of 16702)
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.

If bluestar works for The New York Times - well, maybe he has virtues that aren't apparent from the postings.

But I think that the "average reader of The New York Times" would be ashamed that bluestar was a NYT employee.

I know this NYT reader hopes he isn't.

Alas, I think he is.

cantabb - 06:30pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16697 of 16702)

rshow55 - 06:07pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16687 of 16693)

If my postings are within NYT definitions of paranoia then the brand "All the news that's fit to print" is thoroughly besmirched.

One thing does NOT lead to other, as you imagine.

rshow55 - 06:11pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16691 of 16693)

If the NYT's sole interest is discrediting me - they sure have given this forum a lot of space.

You are the ONE "discediting" yourself -- asking posters to believe in your numerous evidence-free claims and wild theories. And you're doing a very job all by yourself.

And if I've gotten that much space from an institution whose "sole purpose is discrediting me" that's an honor !

You abused the forum, by default. No one at NYT paid any attention and let it go on this long.

rshow55 - 06:09pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16689 of 16693)

That's true whether that poster is being truthful about his affiliation or not.

How about lchic's affiliation ? And, your own affiliation (if any and active) ?

And if I've gotten that much space from an institution whose "sole purpose is discrediting me" that's an honor !

Abuse by default. I can't see why NYT would lift even a finger when YOU are discrediting yourself, all alone and royally !

rshow55 - 06:13pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16692 of 16693)

If I could establish just that - all my problems of credibility would be solved !

That's where your credibility lies. And you still do not want to restore it, or have been able to do it in any significant way !

cantabb - 06:34pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16698 of 16702)

Rshow55: Your paranoia has been in over-drive for long. Where's lchic (with still unspecified affiliation) to help you out ?

rshow55 - 06:42pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16699 of 16702)
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.

Let's see . . . the definition being used here of "paranoia" is may notion that bluestar or cantabb or Jorian may work for The New York Times .

I wonder how that "definition" of a highly defamatory term ( who hires paranoids ? ) fits with common usage?

What would "the average reader of THE NEW YORK TIMES say ?

Of any competent shrink?

Is the real point that it is crazy to question the power or judgement of The New York Times ?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense