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
(16940 previous messages)
- 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
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
"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
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
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 !
- 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.
- 06:47pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (#
16943 of 16986)
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
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.
- 06:49pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (#
16944 of 16986)
A character string ("http://www.nytco.com/") got
inadvertently inserted into the previous post. Please ignore
(42 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums