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
(5349 previous messages)
- 03:28pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5350 of 5355)
"...gisterme 10/28/02 12:51am takes me to task, and,
stripping a statement from context, says something logically
correct - and then erects a straw-man argument far removed
from what gisterme knows to be a fair statement of the case.
Gisterme responds to a line in rshow55 10/26/02 8:49pm with
". . . WHY NO CHECKING PROCEDURES and STANDARDS
"...And of course there are some checking procedures and
Wellll. This is progress! You finally admit that
there are some instead of no checking procedures
and standards. That's good, Robert.
However, your claim that I've taken your question out of
context seems rather ludicrous to me.
In case you've forgotten, the context of this forum is
MISSILE DEFENSE. If you don't believe that, then check.
That's easy to do, just scroll to the top of this page and
read the large-font bold letters at the top.
Now, the question shown above was the first line you
wrote (preceeded by several lchic links) in rshow55
10/26/02 8:49pm . I knew good and well that lchic links
have nothing to do with missile defense so I didn't bother to
read them again. My response to your post, gisterme
10/28/02 12:51am , was framed in terms of the forum topic,
missile defense, as an example.
After you responded to my post, just to check, I
went back read the referenced lchic links in gisterme
10/28/02 12:51am and sure, enough, they had nothing
to do with missile defense.
It's your entire monolog that's out of context, Robert.
But, the answer I gave was both within the context of this
forum and the bounds of truthfulness. You say I erected a
straw-man arguement. That's not true and you know it. You say
that was not what I knew to be a fair statement of the case.
What case, Robert? This is a forum, not a courtroom. If
as you confess, the context of your question had nothing to do
with the forum topic how can you say that I took your
question out of context? I'm mystified.
- 04:32pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5351 of 5355)
"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.
- 04:37pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (#
5352 of 5355)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed
WRT courts use of evidence/information/data Showalter's
point is that courts stay on track, use pertinent information
that builds a case, use things that
Can Americans Count Americans demonstrate no respect for themselves
Do Americans Count
they Count for
Who doesn't Count
'' The violence in our society is as relentless and
impersonal as an automobile assembly line.
We murder one another by the tens of thousands in this
country, and there is no sign anywhere that that is about to
Not according to Herbert who's been out there for years
counting the dead, dead, dead, dead!
So if Americans can't demonstrate a respect for each other,
can't get themselves sufficiently organised as a society to
How much respect do they have for those outside their
When listening-in-on and destroying the quality of the
phone-conversation Showalter and I were holding last ....
These words were mashed with distortion |
Bush's failure in talks
with world leaders re pushing his GUNG HO go-to-war
Those words were mashed with distortion |
Is the USA impotently embarrassed?
My emphasis on this board relates to the non-working of the
mind of the American War Machine ...
The answers lie 'inside the head'
World Peace is a
MEETING OF MINDS
(3 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums