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 (17632 previous messages)

wrcooper - 10:36pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17633 of 17637)

R Showalter:

I'm naive?

If I'm naieve, you're deluded, pal. The government hasn't placed you under any repressive regime. You're not under "house arrest," as you've maintained. You're free to come and go as you please, and you're free to say anything you want, except for what you've taken a specific oath under the secrecy laws to protect. What information have you taken an oath to protect, Bob? You should know the answer to that, because it has to be in writing, and you should have a copy of it. Now, supposing that way back when you took an oath not to reveal certain information. Unless that information has been officially declassified, you're still under an oath to keep it confidential. Howver, if it is now in the public domain, you're not. Check the law. So, assuming you did take a confidentiality oath once upon a time, have you checked to see what the status of your particular research was. Chances are, by now it's been declassified. Whatever the truth is on that account, however, the face that you're under oath to keep certain information silent is not tantamoumt to house arrest of persecution. Thousands and thousands of government researchers are under security oaths who live lives outside of government with no difficulty, pursuing rewarding careers in math and science. You choose to maintain the illusion that whatever your activities were in the past, they've somehow thwarted your ability to work productively in the present. That's hogwash, Bob, a fantasy, a paranoid delusion. Face up to it.

Your idea that somehow the NYT owes you something or would take a financial interest in promoting any personal scheme of yours is absolutely NUTTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The NYT won't come near you with a mile-long bamboo stick. To them you';re nothing more than any of the dozens and dozens of wackos they hear from every day, people promoting every manner of wild scheme or trying to sell any manner of far-out story. You're no different than any of them, Bob. People who come forward claiming this or that without a shred of evidence to back them up. People have begged you on this forum to provide some sort of verifiable, documentable, clear presentation of your basic grievances, and you've never done so in years of participation on these boards. In the meanwhile, you've concocted the most outrageous ideas about the paricipation of high-level government officials and journalists and have accused the NYT of duplicity and nefarious practices in its "handling" of you, as if the NYT even knows or cares the slightest whit about you.

It's all in your head, Bob, and as far as the NYT is concerned, it's qall about to come to an end, because the forum moderators are not going to allow you to export this nonsense to other forums. Bank on that.

Move on, Bob. Get a life.

wrcooper - 10:38pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17634 of 17637)

Showalter:

Whatever the truth is on that account, however, the face that you're under oath to keep certain information silent is not tantamoumt to house arrest of persecution.

should read

Whatever the truth is on that account, however, the fact that you're under oath to keep certain information silent is not tantamount to house arrest or persecution.

bluestar23 - 10:47pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17635 of 17637)

"the forum moderators are not going to allow you to export this nonsense to other forums. Bank on that."

Do you hear that, Showalter...? You're FINISHED with the New York Times....within a few hours perhaps, this forum will be shut, you go anywhere else, and try this, and I'll raise Holy Hell myself; to say nothing of others....your posting days are over....done in by your abuse of the Forum....

rshow55 - 10:51pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17636 of 17637)
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 along. I'm impressed by such a careful piece of writing from someone so "unconnected from The New York Times". The NYT isn't without some responsibility for what's happened to me. I think they know that. This thread hasn't been typical. NYT behavior in 1999 and later wasn't typical.

I'll be happy to see this thread ended. But the record of what happened on this thread remains interesting. People are responsible for what they say and do. The use of monikers that are "anonymous" - but well known within an organization - involves new usages - and people have to think about the responsibilities involved. If the big boss uses an "anonymous" moniker, which everybody in the organization knows - and talks with less responsibility than he would formally - is he still speaking as the boss - responsible as the boss - when everyone knows he's the boss?

Issues like that are becoming more important.

People are responsible for what they say and do. I know I am. Other posters -employed by The New York Times are, too.

I've made a simple, reasonable request. I'll pursue it.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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