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 (16749 previous messages)

bluestar23 - 01:19pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16750 of 16757)

Just babble on, after insane post...NO ONE IS EVEN LISTENING anymore...don't you notice everyone's left this soon to be closed thread..? You're babbling to yourself...

rshow55 - 01:22pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16751 of 16757)
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.

Then why are you and Cantabb working so hard?

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 ?

jorian319 - 01:24pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16752 of 16757)

Robert, please think it through....

Try as I might, I cannot formulate one single reason why NYT would employ anyone to do what cantabb or Bluestar is doing here. If either or both of them were in the employ of NYT, they would have other avenues for getting what they want. They would not be begging NYT to turn of your stream of consciousness ramblings - they'd just get the thread shut down. The conversation necessary to make that happen would occur far away from your eyes.

Kate is the only poster I can reasonably conclude is in the employ of NYT.

I do not see her begging you to desist, with pages and pages parsing your posts to reveal why she doesn't like them. She simply posted notice that the thread is going away. THAT is how I'd expect a representative of NYT to act.

No other poster - not gisterme, not almarst, not cantabb, not bluestar, fredmoore or bbbuck, not me, not you and not lchic - NONE of us carries the tenor or tone of an NYT employee. Why is that so hard for you to swallow?

rshow55 - 01:31pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16753 of 16757)
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.

Jorian - I could accept that determination, in writing, from an officer of the NYT - but not from an anonymous poster - even so amusing and intelligent an anonymous poster as you.

I need stability - in order to be able to make some decisions - and in order for others to do so.

Not oscillations that make it impossible for administrative arrangements to be built and sustained.

Now a very good reason for meeting face to face was - and remains - to provide a way to negotiate the maintenance of "possible fictions" - in ways that still permit people to work.

That's why I suggested a face to face meeting.

Telephone conversations are better than nothing - but not nearly as good.

rshow55 - 01:34pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16754 of 16757)
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.

As a point of information - when I talked over the phone with Apcar, he agreed verbally to shut down the thread - and archive it for a couple of weeks. I had intended that it happen within hours - but in the heat of the conversation - which didn't go on long enough to get things settled clearly - didn't say it.

That's an example of why stable end games take some talking - and some time - even with the best will in the world between the parties.

And usually, there are competitive as well as cooperative interests at play - and everybody is afraid.

That's why diplomatic efforts often fall apart - even when treachery is not involved. ( Sometimes treachery is . )

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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