![[F]](3270_files/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums
 Science
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.
 (3269 previous messages)
mazza9
- 01:35pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3270
of 3327)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Commentaries
wrcooper: Puhlese! Lenny Massa got me into more trouble
because he always gave my name when he was caught in the act.
Lenny Massa may be WRcooper, Kalter, et al but it ain't me.
Don't expect any answer from this latest incarnation of
Tobert Showalter. He's as evasive as one can get and I suspect
that his "long windedness" is a symptom of his incapacity.
rshowalt
- 01:56pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3271
of 3327)
MD3217 rshowalt
7/21/02 11:03am suggests a way of checking.
wrcooper
- 02:09pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3272
of 3327)
In re:
rshowalt (#
3271 )
MD3217 rshowalt
7/21/02 11:03am suggests a way of
checking.
You're putting the cart before the
horse. You claim to have sound reasons for thinking that I and
several other posters on this board are one and the same
person. What reasons do you have for making this allegation?
What have you "checked" to come to this
conclusion?
I am quite sure that kalter and I
have different views on this subject. Lou Massa and I
don't view it the same, either. Since we have different
viewpoints on the matter, our writing styles differ, etc.,
what is your justification for saying that we're the same
person?
You blather on endlessly about the importance
of checking. What did you check before you came forward
with your allegation? How did you arrive at it? Cite specific
posts of ours that you diligently and meticulously compared
and contrasted in which you found "evidence" for your charge.
Produce the evidence, great and worthy checkmeister that you
are.
I am not about to give out my private phone number
to a person I think is unbalanced and paranoid, namely you, so
you can stop offering up, at least to me, your plan of
conducting a group telephone conference, so that we can prove
we're separate people. I won't do that. Anyway, if we really
are part of a government conspiracy to hound and dismay you on
the NYT forums, we could easily arrange to fake such a
conference, using other people as dummy stand-ins. It wouldn't
prove anything. No, I'm much more interested in hearing your
justification for claiming we're the same person. That shoudl
be entertaining, at least.
lchic
- 03:32pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3273
of 3327)
George Johnson's style monikers have this in common:
'interest in the periferal', little contribution to the board
re inputs, and the nature of the beast (so to speak) shines
through - most often via negative twaddle!
|> Good Morning & Out!
wrcooper
- 03:41pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3274
of 3327)
lchic
7/24/02 3:32pm
I personally have posted on-topic many times here. You can
CHECK that if you like by doing a search.
So, your reason for agreeing with our resident
obsessive-compulsive hypergraphologist that I'm one and the
same with Messrs. Massa-Johnson-Rauch is that I post off
topic? Go back and look. I used to post about the BMD debate,
but got turned off by Showalter's and your lengthy repetitious
verbal vomitings. For someone who slavishly dogs Bob's lead in
insisting on careful checking, your reasons for seconding his
paranoid allegation are extraordinarly thin. But that's the
nature of paranoiacs. They see conspiracies and plots and evil
doings at every turn.
You're pathetic.
rshowalt
- 03:44pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3275
of 3327)
I'm taking a little time to enjoy the market move up just
now. rshowalt
7/24/02 12:26pm
But I did a little searching, and noticed that the issue of
George Johnson working (as a hack) behind a lot of pseudonyms
has been an issue raised on this thread, by me and by
lchic more than 40 times since Mar 29, 2001 EST #1742
-- and in other forums, for years before. An issue raised
enough times, in enough ways it seems to me, that if Johnson
wanted the issue resolved, he could surely have found an
effective way to establish the truth - unless it happened to
be against him. (For instance - by emailing me with a denial,
and a proposal with a way to check - subject to embarrassments
and penalties.) If I owe George Johnson, or you, and apology,
and that becomes clear, you'll get the apology.
Maybe I'm wrong about you, Cooper. Don't deny that
possibility. But perhaps, if you object to my proposal for
checking, the proposal can be modified, perhaps at a little
cost to me (there's a good deal involved for me, on a number
of issues) so that you don't have to turn over your number to
me -- but can to someone with some independence and stature.
I think lchic has stature, for the purposes here.
She's too much of a crafstman to lie about something like
this. And I bet if she sets out to do a competent job of
recording a conversation, and asking key questions, she can.
"Cooper", I'll respond more to your question. There's a lot
I can say that can be checked. But I want, just now, to do
some other things, and enjoy the market move. rshowalt
7/24/02 12:26pm
(52 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|
