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 (16777 previous messages)

cantabb - 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 stand-ins."

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." [rshow]

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.

cantabb - 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 ways.

jorian319 - 04:05pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16780 of 16789)


"Porkus" ?

"Poor cuss" ?

cantabb - 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 ?

jorian319 - 04:15pm Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16782 of 16789)

It's the middle of the night "down there". World assets need their beauty sleep.

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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