New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out

 [F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (16703 previous messages)

rshow55 - 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 accomodation.

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.

cantabb - 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 usage?

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 the other)

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 imagine.

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 toward it.

- - 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 I've been.

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 constructive.

Among other things that are NOT even remotely 'Constructive."

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 question

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 out then.

Take it up with NYT, if they'd talk to you. Nobody knows what you're talking about !

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense