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 - 03:05pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17328 of 17334)

rshow55 - 02:46pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17320 of 17321)

If I had an agreement that anything the NYT tells others about me - they also tell me - basically along the lines of the tentative draft letter I dictated over Apcar's speaker phone -

Dream on.....

which was all statements that clarified NYT's power - but that did ask for that, I'd bow out of this forum gracefully, gratefully - and from my point of view, successfully - and the thread could go on.

It's their forum. And you've defied and abused their posting privileges for far too long. Even NYT's patience has limits.

As to "gracefully, gratefully" and "successfully" (whatever that means in this case) bowing out of this thread, I think you missed the boat you should have taken long ago. As far as I can determine, it's your demands and conditions that seems to have hastened the forum's demise -- on the top of your (and lchic's) abuse of this forum for 3 years.

That, I think, would have been a better solution - and it was consistent with what Apcar said over the phone - though somewhat more explicit.

You were in NO position to tell NYT or anyone else what could have been "better" for them. Think about what could have been better for YOU.

It was a request that seems worth asking for, given some of the statements made by bluestar and others on this thread.

You're again mis-representing the posters. YOU wanted some reprieve -- but you did not get any, largely because of your own continued abuse and attitude.

rshow55 - 03:11pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17329 of 17334)
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.

What attitude do you suggest?

cantabb - 03:23pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17330 of 17334)

rshow55 - 02:58pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17323 of 17328)

I don't think it far-fetched to think that bluestar has some inside knowledge about the way NYT works.

AS every one in your 'world': People working either for NYT or other CIA and intellince agencies.

I could be wrong, I suppose, about that

NOt only "could be" but may very well be, as you have been for so long on such speculations.

But if I'm not, I have to pause a little about the sincerity of what Apcar told me over the phone.

Ask Apcar !

I mentioned concerns about attribution of insanity. He responded readily to the effect that "no one believes that" - and the meaning he intended to make me recieve was "nobody around here thinks you're crazy at all."

BUT you keep proving them wrong, by your own posts...

Apcar said, in a way that sounded reasonable to me as well that "the thread speaks for itself" - in ways that made me feel, listening to him - that he thought NYT had "gone the extra mile" - obviously they had some respect for my work. Anyway, that's what I got over the phone.

"respect for your work" ON WHAT ? You are NOT yet able to define it. The only 'extra mile' I see is that they more or less ignored YOUR abuse of this thread. THat's all.

Any reasonable person, I think, in ordinary business, would have wanted something in writing to show adminstratively - and I tried hard to phrase the minimum statement I could really use.

And, you apparently FAILED to get that !

Taking a look at postings from bluestar and other anonymous posters here, I had reason to want some things in writing. Still do.

Most posters are ANONYMOUS. we don't know who lchic is and who does she work fdor and what's her interest in this thread (I hope it's NOT just as your ADC and water-carrier/'World Asset'). You've been shown the door -- in writing. What else d'ya want ? NYT forums don;t have a 'bouncer'.

People need relationships that are simple and clear . Often, that means you need things in writing.

NOT so. And, you have already had things in writing.

bluestar23 - 02:59pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17324 of 17328)

[rshow] "I'd bow out of this forum gracefully'

Yeah, yeah, as he's shoved out, 'gracefully'.

rshow55 - 03:01pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17325 of 17328)

I need something like that in writing - from someone with a name an administrator could trace - that I can show administratively . It doesn't seem so much to ask.

YOU may need all kinds of things. BUT what are the chances of getting those. As I see it: NIL. And, you, as an abuser of this thread for long, are in NO position to demand !

I've been more than willing to talk about wording - so it fits my own needs with absolutely minimum disruption of NYT procedures and usages

YOU may "more than willing to" do anything -- BUT no body else (and NYT) want to oblige you. Can't you and lchic see the light ?

cantabb - 03:26pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17331 of 17334)

rshow55 - 03:11pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17329 of 17330)

What attitude do you suggest?

TOO LATE in the game. Apparently whatever lchic suggested to you in your almost daily conversations (1-2h) for the past 3+ years did NOT work out.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense