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
(16703 previous messages)
- 07:31pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (#
16704 of 16706)
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.
Now, I can ask myself - from where I am right now - looking
forward to a time where my best try at accomodation has failed
Should I try to sue the NYT ?
Setting aside the question of whether or not I have the
means - should I try to do so ?
I think both Eisenhowers would have said yes .
I also think that Scottie Reston and C.L. Sulzberger
would say yes .
I'm doing my damndest to come to a reasonable
If I have to fight - then I have to.
If that happens - I hope a lot of people notice - because
it will say a lot about how much sophistication and honor the
US has lost since the 1950's - ugly as things often were then.
- 07:47pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (#
16705 of 16706)
rshow55 - 06:42pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16699 of 16703)
the definition being used here of "paranoia"
is may notion that bluestar or cantabb or Jorian may work
for The New York Times .
What a leap -- without a net !
I wonder how that "definition" of a highly
defamatory term ( who hires paranoids ? ) fits with common
Fairly well, I'd say.
What would "the average reader of THE NEW
YORK TIMES say ? Of any competent shrink?
The average readers of NYT are NOT worried about your
personal problems you still have NOT specified.
Is the real point that it is crazy to
question the power or judgement of The New York Times ?
Rather, collect factual information to support your claims
-- like most others would do in simlar situations. Few things
erode one's credibility more and faster than a habit of making
baseless accusations. (Actually, in your case, "oscillating"
between grovelling at one end and making wild accusations at
rshow55 - 06:46pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16700 of 16703)
If you want some good entertainment - with
sophistication - search fredmoore .
You mean the barnyard kind ?
I think that with some organization - the
corpus of this thread had possibilities .
For YOU & may be lchic, but hardly any other I can
rshow55 - 06:50pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16701 of 16703)
I got more excited when Dawn Riley brought
"Muddle in Moscow" to my attention. Back then, I was
convinced that, one way or another - lchic had connections
to the real skinny in journalism. Boy, was I gullible . .
Not quite a surprise.
I was also impressed, maybe wrongly by
dialog with our "Bush administration stand-in" gisterme ,
starting with a powerful one in his first posting
But you 'used' (= abused) a lot of forum space and time
- - and the sad truth is that I've been so
deluded that I've mostly worked trying to help get
communication going between those two.
That's NOT the one thing of this kind you seem to have done
That work involved great contributions from
"stand-ins" who have taken the role of senior Russian and
American officials - - a role that has continued since March
1, 2000 207
More of your groundless theories on poster IDs.
And yes, I have felt that both gisterme and
Almarst have been important - if only in a "simulated" role.
Much more important - by role, and posting-for-posting, than
And, for this, you hijacked this thread for this personal
process -- nothing to do with MD.
Call me crazy - - - but I've tried to be
Among other things that are NOT even remotely
Suppose it were shown to the satisfaction of
a judge or a jury that Jorian and cantabb and bluestar23
were New York Times employees? What might follow. Just a
hypothetical, of course. But worth a passing thought.
Your obsession with poster IDs. You have presented nothing
so far that leads me to think that NYT is out to 'destroy'
you. All NYT needed to do was to BLOCK/BAN you and lchic.
Which I understand they did to you -- that you managed to
return to post again is another thing in your bag of tricks.
They could have BANNED you two permanently.
I was taught a test, pretty seriously, by a
military guy ( named D.D. Eisenhower ) who also taught me
some things about Godel's proof. When we discussed the
Your word... without a shred of evidence.
Some simple help that the NYT could have
easily given on September 25 2000, or shortly thereafter,
was denied. If I'm a fraud - well - the NYT could have found
Take it up with NYT, if they'd talk to you. Nobody knows
what you're talking about !
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums