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 (17299 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:38pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17300 of 17306)
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.

If the "story" here http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.AiuRbalTX2C.2721030@.f28e622/14189 - hadn't been true in key essentials - my guess is that the NYT would have found a way, one way or another, to shut this thread down long ago. http://www.mrshowalter.net/UrgeToPunishCheatsNotJustHumanButSelfless.htm

The context of that meeting hinges on many things - including things that happened in 1999 where I believe, and have reason to believe, that the NYT ought to take some responsibility.

And where it could - at no risk to itself - if it would talk to me.

What's my recourse, if we can't talk, and I'm left where I can't function at all ( and the NYT knows it ) unless I take a stand?

I need, after all, to be able to answer questions of administrators, committees, cops, investment bankers, security lawyers, and others.

cantabb - 12:39pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17301 of 17306)

rshow55 - 12:16pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17296 of 17299)

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.

Wow. Serious threats. Get ready, Sulzberger (NYT) !

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.

Well, you want to call Punch's office again. Don't know if he or the moderators would read this !

rshow55 - 12:19pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17297 of 17299)

Until we learn some things - it is .

Who's "we" ?

rshow55 - 12:41pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17302 of 17306)
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.

The whole human race has problems with negotiations when people have differences of interest and opinion. Well illustrated by this thread.

jorian319 - 12:46pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17303 of 17306)

The whole human race has problems with negotiations when people have differences of interest and opinion.

How profound. Amazingly, the converse is also true - the whole human race has no problems with negotiations when people have no differences of interest and opinion.

So what?

cantabb - 12:49pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17304 of 17306)

rshow55 - 12:38pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17300 of 17301)

.... my guess is that the NYT would have found a way, one way or another, to shut this thread down long ago.

BUT it did NOT -- despite numerous poster complaints. You may want to now thank NYT for it.

You're STILL wallowing in your unspecified personal problems.

The context of that meeting hinges on many things - including things that happened in 1999 where I believe, and have reason to believe, that the NYT ought to take some responsibility. And where it could - at no risk to itself - if it would talk to me.

I thought NYT didn't want to meet you. And showed you the door !

What's my recourse, if we can't talk, and I'm left where I can't function at all ( and the NYT knows it ) unless I take a stand?

That's, if NYT doesn't want to talk to you ! Why can't you "function at all" ? What does NYT [or this thread etc] got to do with your ability/inability to "function."

You imagine yourself "under house arrest," you say "you can't function at all"! Talk to CIA or other intelligence agencies.

I need, after all, to be able to answer questions of administrators, committees, cops, investment bankers, security lawyers, and others.

You keep talking about your helplessness and 'needs' -- but, so long as this NYT thread is alive, you are "functioning" well -- because I thought you mentioned, among various other things, THIS WAS your "work."

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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