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.

rshow55 - 12:09pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17292 of 17297)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Cantabb , you can shut this down anytime you want ( I assume you're participating in the decision.)

I asked the Executive Editor of NYT on the Web to shut it down within hours, days ago. My guess is he understood what I meant.

- - -

If people say "if you threaten us, or insult us even slightly - we won't talk to us" stable relationships between the parties based on something higher than rape are classified out of existence.

And fights become inevitable.

rshow55 - 12:11pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17293 of 17297)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Errata

If people say "if you threaten us, or insult us even slightly - we won't talk to you " stable relationships between the parties based on something higher than rape are classified out of existence.

Win-win accomodations are guaranteed.

And so is a great deal of paralysis.

The United States is producing many, many problems in the world with just those tactics.

So it The New York Times .

cantabb - 12:14pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17294 of 17297)

rshow55 - 12:04pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17290 of 17291)

Cantabb asked me to flesh out my threat. Thinking about that.

Did I ? Or you interpreted it so ? In any case, go on whatever you want to do that your family, Casey-IKE etc would "approve of."

But a technical point first. Sometimes - within established conventions it is essential at the level of grammar that there be threats - that there be a balance of pluses and minuses. Even when they are pro forma. Quite often, they are not.

So, in case of YOUR 'threats', are you just being 'grammatical' or as you say, "[q]uite often" they are "not" ?

Don't bother answering.

I know you're still 'musing' about the "outrage" and the "threats" -- but thanks for your advanced warning.

rshow55 - 12:14pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17295 of 17297)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I'm moving too fast.

Errata to the second power:

If people say "if you threaten us, or insult us even slightly - we won't talk to you " stable relationships between the parties based on something higher than rape are classified out of existence.

Win-win accomodations are classified out of existence.

A great deal of paralysis and injury is guaranteed.

The United States is producing many, many problems in the world with just those tactics.

So is The New York Times .

rshow55 - 12:16pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17296 of 17297)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

No Cantabb , because of the way the NYT is acting, I'm not just being grammatical. I'm thinking hard about doing actual damage.

I have no choice.

And from my perspective - there are enormously compelling reasons to show how the kind of negotiation we're involved in works.

In the real world. And has to.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense