New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(16746 previous messages)
cantabb
- 01:14pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16747 of 16750)
rshow55 - 12:42pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16739 of 16741)
Cantabb: What else do you think has been
happening in exchanges here ?
rshow55: In decision making - one needs
nonoscillatory answers under many circumstances for
stability.
We're debating here, NOT "deciding" anything.
Here is a basic logical point. If I had a
signed piece of paper from the NYT saying that Cantabb
either was or was not a NYT employee - I could
accomodate to either answer - whether I happened to believe
it or not.
TRY this "basic logical point" on NYT.
You had my answer, and you still demanded it over and
over again. That is poster harassment, as far as
I'm concerned.
Your obsession is NOT my problem.
Stably.With oscillation of answers - many
sociotechnical systems cannot be built stably.
That's a very basic fact - and if some
people know it - many, many people (including diplomats ) do
not.
Makes NO sense whatsoever. But few thing you say, do.
In the usages of this board, Cantabb acts
both as a NYT employee - and denies that he is.
You're calling me a liar ?
Where is the evidence ? I expect it in your NEXT post
!
rshow55 - 12:46pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16740 of 16741)
Often, for administrative purposes, you need
clear answers - and sometimes fictions will do. But for
stability under complicated circumstances, with many
unforseeable problems to be expected - right answers are
very, very important.
Fuzzy generalities. Makes NO sense.
The struggles that the NYT is having making
a simple agreement with me illustrates just how messed up
our dealmaking procedures - including diplomatic procedures
- have come to be - and how messed up in them the NYT now
is.
Actually, all the "struggles" seem ONLY on YOUR part. NYT
showed you the door, and didn't even want to meet you. Didn't
they ?
We have a mess - and this thread is
exemplary.
And, YOU created most of it, along with lchic ! And did
this over a LONG time -- totally unchecked by NYT moderators.
We need to clean some things up.
With your interest in STILL doing the very same that
created the mess -- continued abuse of forum privileges --
you're in NO position to "clean" anything up -- AND, in its
LAST week !
In my particular case - I'm insisting that
it happen - one way or another - to the extent that I have
power to see that it is clarified. I'll be responsible for
what I do - but I'm intending to hold other people
responsible, too. Even if they work for the sainted New York
Times.
You may be "insisting," but you see any body listening ? We
ARE responsible for what we do. And, NYT people seem to have
just realized what YOU have done.
rshow55 - 12:48pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16741
of 16741)
If things are to be effectively hidden -
without untoward troubles, or dishonesty - the people
involved need to agree on enough details for it to happen.
I do not owe the New York Times, or any of
its people, any agreement of confidentiality, either express
or implied - unless we talk about it and get the matter
clear.
But NO body at NYT wants to meet you, as you say. The
letters you posted lays it out clearly.
rshow55
- 01:15pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16748 of 16750) 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.
Bluestar23 , are you a legitimate representative of
The New York Times - and do responsible NYT officers know who
you are - and approve of your postings?
Yes or no ?
If I could have that simple issue determined - in writing -
from a responsible member of the "control group" of the New
York Times Company - much would clarify.
It would be progress for me, whichever determination was
given.
Though the answer would make a difference.
If the answer is no, why should I have the tiniest concern
for what you tell me?
If the answer is yes, how can The New York Times Company
not be responsible for what you've said and done in their name
?
rshow55
- 01:16pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16749 of 16750) 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.
Cantabb , I have no particular reason to believe
your word - especially if you're in a situation where, to stay
employed, you may have to lie.
Still, it makes sense to ask.
Cantabb, are you a legitimate representative of The
New York Times - and do responsible NYT officers know who you
are - and approve of your postings?
Yes or no ?
If I could have that simple issue determined - in writing -
from a responsible member of the "control group" of the New
York Times Company - much would clarify.
It would be progress for me, whichever determination was
given.
Though the answer would make a difference.
If the answer is no, why should I have the tiniest concern
for what you tell me?
If the answer is yes, how can The New York Times Company
not be responsible for what you've said and done in their name
?
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|