New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (4136 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:44pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4137 of 4141) Delete Message
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 don't know enough about Cooper to judge in some areas (if Cooper is a real person) - but looking at the works of George Johnson from the perspective of Piaget is interesting, too.

wrcooper - 08:17pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4138 of 4141)

No, I'm not a real person, Bob. I'm actually George W. Bush.

Hiya, partner.

My lieutenants told me I'd better check you out, because you're causing great consternation in the high councils here in our nation's capital. Damn, boy, I wish to hell you'd just shut up.

Listen, I've had my security people watching you for a while now. I hope you don't mind. Some influential journalists, like my good friend Ann Coulter, have been following you, too. We're using you to gauge the opposition to my BMD program. So goes Showalter, so goes the nation. We don't like what we're seeing.

Sorry me and my good friend George Johnson are using the same login name here. It was the easiest thing to do. What can I say? You want me to say I regret it? Okay, I do, but I did it for national security reasons. I had good reasons, Bob.

Listen, I just hope we'll persuade you, boy. We're working hard to make this thing work, and it's for all our benefits. Why don't you lay back for a spell, and give me and the fairhaired boys down at the Pentagon a chance to make this thing work. We know we can do it, and everybody'll sleep better at night if we do.

I admire your gumption, Bob, but your passion's misplaced. Give it a rest, will you?

Thanks.

--George W. Bush, aka Cooper, Johnson, gisterme, et. al.

PS Now that I've let the cat out of the bag, I hope you'll ease up on me. Give us in Washington a chance to do our work in peace...for peace.

Bye!

rshow55 - 08:26pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4139 of 4141) Delete Message
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.

MD4116-4117 rshow55 9/2/02 9:07am

This thread has many of the difficulties, and strengths, of pretrial discovery.

I said that it seemed likely that gisterme is Condoleeza Rice, and gave my reasons.

People could check.

- - -

4058 rshow55 8/31/02 9:32am

Casey wanted better answers.

He didn't know how to do any better than he did, given the risks he saw, the situation he was in - and the terrible stupidity and ignorance both around him and within him.

He was stumped.

So were the Russians.

We can do a lot better now.

- - -

I've got plenty of reasons to work on this thread - both in terms of duty, and for straight economic reasons, too.

And it will be worthwhile to discuss the work of George Johnson (not that he's Cooper at all - but he does have a certain point of view) in terms of Piaget. And truth that is, somehow, too weak.

wrcooper - 08:37pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4140 of 4141)

This is George Johnson this time.

You can examine me in light of Piaget all you want, but it's not going to change how I think, and it's not going to change the fact that your opinions represent a dangerous aberration that requires the strongest possible refutation.

You will be checked and checked thoroughly.

It is not for naught that we saw to it that you began posting here in the New York Times. This is a controlled venue. We know who you are and where you are.

Don't call the CIA again. It won't do you any good. If you want to talk to us, just whisper into your pillow.

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us