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
(16777 previous messages)
- 03:52pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16778 of 16789)
rshow55 - 02:59pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16769 of 16773)
If you don't work for the New York Times -
he needs to be notified !
And you did notify him and his office, didn't you ? Why
then bring all that personal stuff here ?
rshow55 - 03:14pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16771 of 16773)
Because he's [cantabb] acting as if he's
representing the NYT
To you, every one who questions you IS working for
NYT ? You just posted a list of people, asking several posters
that juvenile question [whether or not they are associated
with NYT]. I can understand why you need to keep feeding your
paranoias. This, lchic can do for you. No other.
- about 1100 postings ago, Cantabb said
this: "And, had you written THAT "short" "well-crafted"
letter to him and called him, as you had been planning to
do, you would have returned from NYC by now, after a visit
to CIA, FBI, Rummy, GW, Rice and the whole gang-- and their
That had to do with your bringing in here your personal
problems with NYT, and though you wanted to write that but had
NOT. Because, as you said, you'd rather do the "fencing" than
what you thought was important for you.
Didn't you detect any sarcasm in that ? The quotes are your
OWN words, not mine.
- He's taking a role as a representative of
the New York Times - and if it is an unauthorized role -
well, it seems to me that Sulzberger would be concerned.
Most responsible executives would be.
NO body's taking any role that YOU assign in your own
fertile mind !
And, I've told you before, and in no uncertain terms
before, that I hold brief for NO one -- NO body can
make me do that either (they wouldn't have the power or the
money for that). Got that ? At least this time ?
To oscillate between a "responsible" and
"irresponsible" stance - making points as if he represents
the TIMES - is no credit to the TIMES.
Take up this nonsense with NYT.
rshow55 - 03:18pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16773 of 16773)
I don't think it was in the NYT interest to
have so much defamation on this board that I felt complelled
to post 16724-16729 publicly.
You think it's in NYT's interest to see you continue to
make outlandish charges against them ? Couldn't they have just
BLOCKED/BANNED you, as they reportedly had done before. Why
would NYT (or any one else, for that matter) let you go on ...
You posted the correspondence on your own for
whatever you thought you needed to defend: "In self
defense, I think it right to post these letters now."
With the kind of competence that The average
reader of the New York Times has and expects - this thing
could have been resolved easily a long time ago. As it
stands, there really could be a fight.
The average NYT reader, like me and others, has NO interest
in your self-initiated, self -promoted and self-inflicted
problems: This average NYT reader has been wondering WHY on
earth are you dumping all your personal problems, obsessions
and other details HERE on this thread ?
Bad management , I'd say.
Tell NYT that, as you negotiate your "leaving gracefully"
with them ON your conditions.
- 04:02pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16779 of 16789)
jorian319 - 03:50pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16777 of 16778)
klsanford0 - 03:43pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16776 of 16778)
I suspect things will "deteriorate" further. Rshow
thinks posting on THIS is his full-time work, and shutting it
down denies him his 'right' to work --- from world
peace/stability to cooking his breakfast/wealking the dog/his
nap, and everything in between !!
I had asked kate_nyt why have him dump more and more
stuff -- MORE abuse -- ONLY to delete it 10 days later. Why
NOT shut it down immediately? Anyone interested in saving this
SLOP had already done that ("Corpus"), but NYT has its own
- 04:05pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16780 of 16789)
"Poor cuss" ?
- 04:08pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16781 of 16789)
I asked lchic a question that she had been demanding of
others, and she disappeared. Must have been highly
inconvenient for her ?
- 04:15pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (#
16782 of 16789)
It's the middle of the night "down there". World assets
need their beauty sleep.
(7 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums