New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(5352 previous messages)
- 04:59pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5353 of 5356)
"...Gisterme goes on to argue that I may have an
"astounding ignorance about real engineering development
projects or real development projects of any kind."..."
What I said was...
"...I suppose your nonsensical question falls under the
"failure to seek the truth" part of the Showalter/lchic world
conquest method. Either that or you reveal an astounding
ignorance about real engineering development projects or real
development projects of any kind.
Which is it, Robert?..."
That's far less and argument than a simple question,
Robert. A question I notice that you fail to answer.
"...Let's talk "missile defense" - as it has been
discussed on this board. I'm writing out ... rshow55 4/30/02
9:09am again below, because we've been dealing with some key
issues over and over.
In that post you ask things like "Can it see the target?",
"Can it hit the target?" and "Can it hurt the target?"... The
best answer I can give to those "key" questions, as you call
them, is FIVE OUT OF SEVEN SUCCESSES to date in the missile
defense test program.
You're the one who keeps coming back to that...you can't
quite seem to face the facts.
"...Because gisterme's responses are so often enronation
- - it makes sense to review what I have said, and can know,
about who (s)he is..."
I tried to look that word "enronation" up in the
dictionary. Couldn't find it. Is that another of your
fabrications, Robert? I can think of others that might
work...if we can substitute "enronation" for embezzlement,
then perhaps we could substitute "stalination" for murder or
perhaps "clintinoation" for frogs who get stung by scorpions.
Perhaps "showalteration" could be substituted for fabrication.
Hmmm, the possibilities seem endless.
- 05:05pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5354 of 5356)
"...So why doesn't everyone in the world think like ....
Because there is always a tiny minory who would be king.
I'm content that all but a tiny minority think more like me
than like you, lchic.
- 05:22pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5355 of 5356)
"...Gisterme points out that I don't and can't know who
(s)he is - and can only make inferences based on
How hard is it to infer that I'm not Condolizza Rice
and not a female when I TELL YOU SO, Robert?
You just presume that everybody who doesn't agree with
your world view must be somebody important. That makes
you feel important, right, Robert? Does it help justify
your means of support? If it does, you're supported by a bunch
"...I know gisterme is very sensitive when I make
comments about Stanford deans - but I can't be sure who (s)he
is without checking - checking that I can't do - though some
Stanford is a fine university Robert; but I've never been
there. Don't know where this "sensitivity to comments about
Stanford deans" stuff is coming from.
Your "some others could" part of the comment seems a little
baffeling. Are you suggesting that someone at the New York
Times should violate their employer's security policies just
so you might find out my name? You'd just be
dissapointed if they did. If someone at the NYT did do that
for you, would that act fall under the definition of
- 05:48pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5356 of 5356)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Good job. It only took persistence and 1100 odd posts for
you to receive a partial admission from Robert. Who knows,
maybe by Christmas 2009 and 475,000 additional, inane verbage
he might deign to admit more.
New York Times on the Web Forums
Enter your response, then click the POST MY
MESSAGE button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.