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 - 01:56pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17546 of 17564)
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.

For putting complex deals together that can be stable this is crucial.

People should be much more clear about this.

Especially at the New York Times.

And certainly a case where they should be sensitive is when they are using "coded monikers" where everyone in a defined group knows who is who - and outsiders don't.

rshow55 - 01:57pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17547 of 17564)
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 New York Times - perhaps more than any other organization in the secular society - is expected to be responsible about what it says and implies.

cantabb - 02:07pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17548 of 17564)

rshow55 - 12:42pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17525 of 17537)

If a New York Times reporter or editor can actually ask " Why are you so concerned what anyone would say about you (without your knowledge) ? " and not know the answer - that explains a lot about the relationship between the NYT and the rest of the world that ought to be fixed.

Don’t tax your ‘logic’. Nothing rational forthcoming yet.

If the point can be made by a responsible person at the Times who doesn't know how crucial and sensitive the issue is - that explains a lot, too.

You and you alone announced and flaunted your own identity and personal life – numerous times. It’s your problem – NOT anyone else’s !

For example, it explains a lot about how the Jayson Blair business could have happened. People are generally so afraid of the NYT that people in it have become totally lacking in knowledge and feeling in crucial areas.

Makes NO sense. What’s the parallel with the Blair incident (a regrettable chapter for NYT, indeed). None that I see.

rshow55 - 12:51pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17527 of 17537)

If someone with high influence at the paper doesn't know it - then the judgement that people expect and trust in a paper that sets itself up as supplying "All the news that's fit to print" is badly in need of some basic education.

Incoherent rant.

To judge fitness - sensitivity to everything involved in the question " Why are people so concerned what anyone would say about them (without their knowledge) ? " has to be assumed - because that sensitivity is fundamental to any decent judgement of fitness.

Meaningless verbiage. You can NOT stop people from talking. Plain and simple. Or, else people will be in the same boat as you happen to be in. What planet are you on ? Find out what's actionable FIRST, and how successful you can be in suing anybody for that.

lchic - 12:52pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17528 of 17537)

From a 'management' stance the Blair-Flare indicates a failure to appreciate what should be expected from an employee in a set time period .... Blair was issuing 'output' to demand NYT fell down in the 'quality' stakes ... because ... there was an assumption that professionals follow a code there was no 'personal' interaction with seniors there was a lack of realism regarding the time required to do a job - to professional standards .... a failure to appreciate the process - the stages - the checking and re-checking

ALL your own obsession running wild in the last desperate days for you (Blair affair totally irrelevant here). You STILL think posters are NYT employees asked by their management to make rshow’s and your life miserable.

Wake up: Can't they can simply BAN your and rshow’s access to the forums ? That easy ! And, here you concocting stories from non-existent material. But that’s the world you and rshow have chosen to live in.

Take the Cantabbulator --- an echo -- a process .... BIG on the small small on the BIG

Is this prattle supposed to make sense ?

Didn’t know all this has had such severe effect on you.

rshow55 - 01:24pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17535 of 17537)

cantabb - if you are an employee of the New York Times - you and the New York Times are responsible for what you say and its consequences - even if you are ( semi)hiding behind a moniker. Speaking "unconnected to the NYT" yet in the NYT's name and with its implied authority.

Same old paranoia. You’re spinning a story without anything like a yarn. Like lchic !

If you, or Sulzberger, or the NYT legal department believe you have a right to say anything - regardless of consequences - we have something well worth fighting about here.

For the nth time, NONE of these people have even a shadow of an influence upon ME.

GOT THAT ?

And

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense