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.

mazza9 - 11:20am Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3666 of 3671)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

I agree with the bold statements in your Rshow55 - 10:40am Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3662 of 3664). I don't see how anyone can disagree as these are very straight forward facts.

BTW another $250 for new retainers. But she does have a beautiful smile, although being 15 she doesn't like those kind of compliments, especially from a parent!

I realize that I reacted strongly to your use of the word force. I believe that the word choice was inappropriate. The word force implies a physical action. Since words have meanings, the improper use thereof is one of the underlying difficulties to truthful checkable discourse. You may have meant force to mean persuasion but you used the word force. Persuasion: Main Entry: per·sua·sion

Pronunciation: p&r-'swA-zh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English persuasioun, from Middle French or Latin;

Middle French persuasion, from Latin persuasion-, persuasio, from persuadEre

Date: 14th century

a : the act or process or an instance of persuading

: a persuading argument

: the ability to persuade : PERSUASIVENESS

2 : the condition of being persuaded

3 a : an opinion held with complete assurance b : a system of religious beliefs; also : a group adhering to a particular system of beliefs

I'm not a NAZI by any definition that I subscribe to. Is this a misunderstanding of my beliefs or an ad hominem attack. I take umbrage at such statements.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 11:42am Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3667 of 3671)

After a point -- I meant force. Umpires in ball games have force on their side, if they have to use it. So does the law - in all sorts of workaday ways.

I'm glad to see you say:

I agree with the bold statements in your Rshow55 - 10:40am Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3662 of 3664). I don't see how anyone can disagree as these are very straight forward facts.

Doesn't that mean that it is important to check facts -- when the consequences are important?

On this thread, there have been important issues in play - and an amount of effort -- setting my efforts and yours aside - that would be difficult to reproduce for a million dollars of billings.

What have you been trying to accomplish? Maybe I've gotten your motivations wrong. What have they been?

I've asked the following questions, on a number of occasions, including MD3608 rshow55 8/10/02 9:24am

"how are key things to be established and checked? We've talked a good deal about that, and maybe the approaches referenced in MD1075-76 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm . . . that were unacceptable in the old environment Greenberg speaks of might be more acceptable in the new environment?

"When I've criticised MD programs - can you tell me things, of a specific, technical nature, where you think I've gotten it wrong?

"Can you, Mazza? Perhaps we can widen our areas of agreement, and clarify what it is about missile defense, as a technical field, that we disagree about.

Those technical issues have consequences - - just as surely as the technical correctness of statements on financial reports that people rely on.

Lou Mazza, is it that you don't feel any obligation to answer my question? If you don't, could you explain to me why it is that you don't?

rshow55 - 12:14pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3668 of 3671)

rshow55 8/12/02 10:45am includes the phrase - "Americans need to be WORTHY of the GOOD THINGS people associate with this flag - - not just wave it. . . " along with an image.

Ann Coulter's new book does include a passage - that she's had to defend on television - where she asserts that "liberals hate the flag." I love the United States, and our flag.

Reasons that I've had to believe that Ann Coulter has posted on this thread extensively, as "kangdawei" are set out between MD3640 rshow55 8/11/02 1:54pm and MD3643 rshow55 8/11/02 2:03pm . Perhaps I'm incorrect - but if so, I've drawn my conclusion for clear reasons - stated so that others can judge for themselves.

Probabilities link. For a year of very extensive postings, gisterme knew that I'd been referring to (him-her), on this thread and on the Guardian, as a Bush administration stand-in - - and gisterme's postings played that role admirably. Almarst knew that I'd been referring to (him-her) as this thread's "Putin stand in" and almarst's postings seemed to me to play that role admirably.

Perhaps I'm guilty of jumping to some conclusions. Playing a "game" - - one may forget that it is a game. But it seems to me I stated the case reasonably in MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am , whether I've made some "connections that aren't there" or not. MD3639 rshow55 8/11/02 1:29pm

The Odds of That by LISA BELKIN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html

The process by which human beings "connect the dots" -- form patterns in their minds -- is the same process - - whether the particular relationship "seen" happens to be real or coincidental. You have to check.

Our culture, these days - is in a lot of serious and unnecessary trouble because checking has become so difficult.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense