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 (16843 previous messages)

lchic - 11:42am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16844 of 16986)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

So exactly 'what is the New York Times' ?

Google | NYT Ethics in journalism ethical journalism

? What should every journalist know

? Why must they keep up to date under changing circumstance

Pages and Pages of it .....

NYT Ethics in Journalism_07 - Visit the link for details. [ Google ]

cantabb - 11:49am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16845 of 16986)

"In re" wrcooper - 10:44am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16839 of 16841)

klsanford : I have no idea what set you off. I've been dealing with Bob Showlater longer than anyone else in the forums. I've actually met the man face to face. I think I'm as qualified as anyone to judge his value to the forum.

[and wrcooper - 10:45am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16840 of 16841)

cantabb: Ditto for you.]

And, you have already posted your 'professional' psychoanalysis of him a few times. Seeking to meet him was a real 'tribute' to your effort and personal concern; I know of no one who would do the same. Too bad you were to regret it later.

The question before us was NOT "judging his value" but to see if he can focus and remain on-topic, and to deal with him -- effectively -- but not aiding and abetting him in numerous futile discussions and to be taken on his endless detours.

As I said before, "ignoring" him was not going to be effective. However, you disagreed, based on your LONG experience, a decision ["ignore" him] you had repeatedly rationalized as THE only way !

And, NOW, what do we see: a U-turn or someone staying the course ?

I've been trying to encourage him to move on for a long time. I think he's stuck in a psychic vortex, and I've said so. If you want to judge that as being intellectually snobbish, that's fine.

You may have -- while you continued lengthy discussions with him for a LONG time. But that personal 'humanitarian' concern for him apparently did NOT work for you, as we later knew.

That was an entirely different matter. The question I had was: To see if he can focus and and remain on-topic and to see he justifies his claims. And, for that one needed to confront -- NOT "ignore"-- him. And, confronting him seems to have worked fairly well in about 7 weeks [sure at some expense; everything has its cost]: Something that the regulars, including you, were UNABLE to bring about in 3-plus years. And I doubt if you would have achieved much of anything, had you (and others) followed your own advice and "ignored" him. Nice, however, to see YOU finally realize that you too have outgrown your own advice.

Now, jump on the bandwagon...

I don't understand your reaction to what I said, but I really don't care.

An analysis of the situation, and not told-you-so. Deconstructing an argument -- a heavily flawed and unfocused -- sure, takes a sustained effort but not a whole lot of time.

Hope this helps. But if it does NOT, I'll now happily follow you : "I really don't care."


Cheers !

cantabb - 11:56am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16846 of 16986)

lchic - 11:06am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16842 of 16845)

Cantabb - Irrignorable! irrational irreconcilable irredeemable irreducible irrefutable Irrelevant irreversible

Cantabb - Irrignorable!

ALL this for asking the Commandant the same questions she had been demanding of other posters ?

Obviously, inconvenient -- when the shoe is on the other foot.

So, once again, lchic: What's your employment affiliation (we know it ain't NYT), and what is your REAL interest in this thread ?

When are you going to let THIS "TRUTH" out ?

May be "freddie "Irregardless" moore" can help us with "Irrignorable" !

cantabb - 11:59am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16847 of 16986)

jorian319 - 11:42am Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16843 of 16846)

You ok lchic? You seem a bit irrigitable this morning.

Spamming does that to you. Particularly when you do this to avoid answering the same questions you ask of others !

Shoe on the other foot is always a little too tight !

More Messages Recent Messages (139 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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