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.

cantabb - 06:00pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16941 of 16986)

lchic - 05:25pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16935 of 16939)

Showalter says he's in the Madison phone book ...... and Cantabbulator asks - what's my point Cantabbulator Cantabbulator Can...tab...u...l...a...t...o...r !!

The point is that whereas you hacks hide in the shadows ... he is up front and out there and has issued an invite for any of you 'hacks' to call him and further discuss etc

"You 'hacks'" ? That would include YOU, wouldn't it ? YOU are also "hid[ing] in the shadows," aren't you ?

At least your leader has given LOT of personal info about himself, WHY haven't you followed him in this ? What do you have to 'hide', when you've been demanding the same of others ??

Again, PUT UP or shut up: Who's your employer ? Whose interests do you represent on this Forum ? What is purpose of your interest (financial, Office support) ? All valid questions, given your obsession in the same from other posters ! Your evasive techniques wearing pretty thin !

Ever heard of privacy ? PosterID protection ? Do you expect/demand most NYT posters, in intense arguments, to reveal their identity ?

Why this obsession here? Is it because you and rshow can NOT and have NOT addressed the questions asked - and must, therefore, resort to such juvenile tactics and ad hominems ?

lchic - 05:26pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16936 of 16939)

Cantabb - don't bother grinding down into your 'small print' ... nobody bothers reading it!

Apparently, you're still reading. And responding -- holding the fort for rshow.

lchic - 05:27pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16937 of 16939)

Cantabb - not entertaining - rather, boring!

Yeah, dodging inconvenient questions, continuously, gets "boring" -- just like pursuing this information through the loops is ! BTW, I'm NOT here to entertain you.

lchic - 05:30pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16938 of 16939)

There's a problem re MD

Technology Review: Why Missile Defense Won't Work ...lchic - 05:30pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16939 of 16939)

Wasn't this (AP report, Sept 2001) posted and discussed here before ? I suggest you look back.

Cantabb would you like to speak to that problem ...

In the meantime, I defer to the "most intelligent man" ad his "World Asset" -- as I await his Re-POSTING the exchanges on it: Your new-found sudden interest in MD now rests on an over-2 year old, as the curtain is ready to fall. Good time: Got religion !

cantabb - 06:11pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16942 of 16986)

lchic - 05:42pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16940 of 16941)

Your numerous posts today should have confirmed to NYT the validity of their decision to shut the forum down.

I expect a big spate of posts from you (supposedly on what you think is MD) and rshow55 (re-hash and rants and/or grovelling against NYT).

That'll be your "appreciation" of kate_nyt's reprieve till next Friday !

To allow ALL this to come in the final week, ONLY to expunge it after Nov 14.

wrcooper - 06:47pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16943 of 16986)

klsanford0

I'm not quite sure what your beef is, but spitting ad hominem at me doesn't amount to much of an argument against my criticisms of the Bush administration's NMD program. I put forward a number of criticisms of the program, not solely that of the challenge it faces of defeating countermeasures. I also provided a number of links to sites that raise authoritative objections to the program.

If you disliked my criticisms of the administration's ABM policies, then you should have objected to them on the basis of their merits, not by bashing what you think is my faux intellectualism or inflated personal self-image. I might be the most pompous ass in the world, but if what I say against the Bush NMD program is valid, then whatever my personal defects might happen to be, the program would still be deficient and defective.

Unfortunately, you have little time left to make genuine arguments on this forum against my criticisms. The forum's ending.

As for how I handled my relationship with R. Showalter, I placed him on "Ignore" after many, many attempots to reason with him over the years. I didn't take that optiohttp://www.nytco.com/n until relatively recently. I blocked lchic, also, because I found her posts generally unenlightening. She did, however, occasionally post on topic. Cantabb's posts dealt almost exclusively with criticisms of rswowalter's off-topic or loony posts or lchic's off-topic posts, so they, too, had nothing to do with missile defense. I met Bob Showalter, because I thought that might help him sort things out, and I first started getting to know him in private emails years ago. I took a personal interest in his efforts to get a professional hearing for his neural transmission theory and his idea that the calculus of infinitesimals contains a fundamental error (not that I necessarily agreed with him, but I sympathized with his perceived plight of being frozen out by a paradigm conflict).

I don't know where your rancor toward me is coming from, but if you hated my criticisms of the NMD program, once again you should have attacked the substance of those criticisms. Attacking me personally does nothing to counter the technical and material points raised in my criticisms.

Cheers.

wrcooper - 06:49pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16944 of 16986)

Oops

A character string ("http://www.nytco.com/") got inadvertently inserted into the previous post. Please ignore it.

Will

(42 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense