New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
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 (16980 previous messages)

cantabb - 05:07am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16981 of 17017)

klsanford0 - 09:31pm Nov 8, 2003 EST (# 16973 of 16980)

The weirdest Forum on NYT rolls on...lchic on a frenzy of mindless posting....she must have been at it all day....

You’re right on ‘frenzy’: Spasms before the physiological end, I think. I expect much more before the forum is put to rest. May be more unspent frenzy spilled on other forums.

I did a quick count of posts (on Nov 8): Out of 154 posts, lchic had 92 (compared to my 32 –- an unusually active Saturday at the forum for me-- most of which in response to her). This does NOT include her ‘contribution’ to other NYT Science Forum. Missionary zeal.

Almost equally weird is yet another agonized account of WRCooper (Posts # 16975-16976) meeting with rshow+wife, which seems to differ from what lchic learned from her leader.

cantabb - 05:11am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16982 of 17017)

lchic - 02:59am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16977 of 16980)

klsandford0 - forums come and forums go The forum is a database

Database, according to your leader’s estimate, ~ 80% of which would otherwise have been “barred” as irrelevant to MD. And, he should know. Speaks volume for this “database,” doesn’t it ? Irrelevancies that include a lot personal problems and posterID obsessions.

The people who post are real-meat Their minds are self-cast in culturally contrived virtuallity .

“Self-cast” ? YES, particularly for you and rshow. The “culturally contrived virtuallity” (whatever you wanted to really mean) seems --to me -- to further gut your point.

That's why the lifeline of truth is important

Which brand of “Truth” ? Yours (that’s NOT let out) ? Or, rshow’s (in never-never land shrouded in perpetual fog) ? Or the ‘generic’ kind that comes out of your nearby ‘truth dispenser’ at the push of a button ?

Cantabb still had nothing original to post on MD . Should ask himself - ditto

Out put from a Link-machine is NOTHING new or “original.” Don’t forget my “ORIGINAL” comments on YOUR postings supposedly on MD all day (out of 154 on Nov 8 -- 32 mine to your 92 ).

Cooper --- took me off 'ignore' ..... and admits it!

And YOU took me off your “ignore” [presumasbly at Cooper’s subliminal suggestion) – but never quite admitted it.

lchic - 03:12am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16978) to lchic - 03:43am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16980)

Highly ‘original’ stuff : quoting published News accounts of incidents in MidEast !

So, when do you think the “TRUTH” about employers and interests (including financial) is going to be let “OUT.” May be we should take a leaf out of your own and rshow’s voluminous book, and start speculating. Any thoughts, Jorian, Bluestar, klsanford, rshow and the NYT “hacks” [and you know who you are] ?

lchic - 06:16am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16983 of 17017)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Nilihistic-cantabbulations ... no one reads ... you're dead in the water man!

lchic - 06:17am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16984 of 17017)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

? did i omit the prefix 'PETTY'

lchic - 06:26am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16985 of 17017)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

NK / DAVID E. SANGER ] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/international/09KORE.html?pagewanted=1&hp

lchic - 06:30am Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 16986 of 17017)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

USA have failed to qualify for the Olympics in one of their-culturally-top sports ....

MD connection ...

"How can a country that can't throw and catch a ball run an MD system?"

More Messages Recent Messages (31 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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