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.

wrcooper - 04:07pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3276 of 3327)

rshowalt 7/24/02 3:44pm

"Cooper", I'll respond more to your question. There's a lot I can say that can be checked.

Yeah, please do. Show me the grounds for asserting that I'm disguising my identity on this board.

You used to be a fawning fan of the NYT science writer and respected author, George Johnson. What happened to you? Did Johnson refuse to help you in your quest to get what you deemed a fair hearing for your neuro-transmission theory?

I heard that you have finally gotten a hearing, and that your theory was rejected. I heard that you have delivered your paper at at least one conference. Is that true?

What turned you into a paranoiac, Bob? You used to be a sympathetic person who seemed to be earnestly trying to get your ideas peer-reviewed. I even offered to help you. I even invited you to come down to Chicago to hear a math lecture and share a beer. We were very friendly on the boards until for some reason you started accusing me of lying, at which point I freaked and threatened to write your department to complain about you. That wasn't my best moment, I admit. But now you're giving every impression of having gone completely round the proverbial bend. What's happened to you?

Enjoy the market.

rshowalt - 04:53pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3277 of 3327)

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.

wrcooper 7/24/02 4:07pm includes this:

"We were very friendly on the boards until for some reason you started accusing me of lying, at which point I freaked and threatened to write your department to complain about you."

When did I accuse you of lying (some time back)? -Perhaps I may have done so - but don't remember that, just now. Nor do I remember your "freaking and threatening to write my department." Now memories are tricky - but I don't remember that happening. Do you happen to have a record, or some way to check?

I stand by the things I've said about Johnson, both bad and good as reasonable opinions based on what I knew when I made them. (There's been plenty I've said, especially about his articles, that has been good, including a comment recently.)

Now, people form patterns, based on things that seem to make a certain sense, and the process of doing so may be just the same, whether the conclusions are right or wrong. Cooper, I may be wrong about you - and I've said as much. Why not check?

Something I notice, that impresses me, but does so negatively. Attribution of insanity is a serious thing - - because operationally, to call someone crazy is really to say "not human." I don't think that's justified.

rshowalt - 04:55pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3278 of 3327)

I'll have more to say - and I'll want to be careful saying it. My relationship with George Johnson goes back a long ways. It has included some significantly positive aspects (perhaps fewer than I've assumed). Also, insofar as I can interpret the situation (and I'd like to check, since I may be wrong) it has included some long duration, high effort sequences where George Johnson (if I understand the situation, and I'd like to be able to check) showed what seems to me to be gross bad faith. Bad faith extending, in my opinion - well into the range of fraud.

Notice that I don't say Johnson's crazy. Nor do I claim infallibility for myself. I could be wrong, and admit that. Still, the issues involved are important enough, I believe, to be worth checking.

Including rather extensive reasons I have to believe that George Johnson has been in contact with, and probably working for, the CIA or an allied agency, acting in ways that show gross bad faith to me, and have inflicted heavy costs.

(Now, the reasons that this makes sense to me could be wrong -- but they aren't crazy just because they could be wrong - they could be checked. If I find I have reason to apologize, I will surely do so.)

Given the stakes, and my personal situation, I've tried to "play it straight" within the limits of my abilities and courage. I think other people, in my situation, might have done, felt,and concluded in the ways I have.

Nor, insofar as I remember, have I ever asked for anyone to trust me without checking. I've asked to be checked.

There's more to say, and I'll take some time.

Attribution of insanity is a serious thing. Raising the issue of fraud is gentle by comparison - especially when I'm asking for a way to check.

And Cooper, if I am wrong about you - that doesn't mean I'm wrong about Johnson's being behind several hack monikers on this thread. I do agree with you that the wrcooper postings, by and large, not counting the attribution of insanity just lately, have been pretty reasonable.

(49 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense