New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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.
(14410 previous messages)
jorian319
- 09:41am Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14411 of 17697) day length increases 1 second every
500 days. -James "Idiot" Nienhuis
Peace, and in my opinion the survival of the
world - require people to learn this lesson.
WHAT "lesson"? There's no lesson there, just disjointed
ramblings.
Yes, Robert, your revelation that good logic, focus,
fairness, perseverence and insight are required to solve
complex problems - that's earthshaking stuff for sure. (NOT)
I sear I've seen platitude generators that make up stuff
that sounds just like your posts, Robert, except with more
salient content.
cantabb
- 12:37pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14412 of 17697)
rshow55 - 10:17am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14409 of 14411)
Your evasive tactics continue. Instead of answering
questions asked, you ramble on...
Cantabb - I'm not ignoring you, exactly -
but I'm dealing with your postings in a number of ways -
some statistical.
Couldn't care less. Suit yourself.
Deal with the questions asked. So far you have NOT. Evasion
continues.
I'm only giving you limited attention. For
instance, I haven't updated ....
There were 182 postings "by Cantabb" between
Sept 17th of this year and Oct 4 - and many since - - none
before. ....
I know Big Brother and Big Sister are on the job.
I think people at different stages Piaget
discusses in The Moral Judgement of the Child might have
different judgements on what Cantabb is doing - and how his
work is and is not "cheating."
Is this supposed to make sense ?
What Cantabb is doing is asking you questions you've
avoided. What is "cheating" in "my work" ? NONSENSE.
Is it cheating to form connections - make
conclusions - and check them? The way real people have to
actually do it? We're having an argument on that basic
issue.
This is NOT a basic issue, unless it has to do with
evasive tactics.
When ou can see facts ("the dots"), and can separate them
fiction/opinion/speculations, then think about "connecting"
them rationally, "the way real" do it !
People who take the NYT - and trust it -
ought to be interested in how that discussion is going, I
think. I suspect some of those people are interested.
The meaning of some text increases as other
text accumulates - and I think that's true of ...
That's a good reason for revising patterns.
Some things, like f = ma "grow on you" as you use them.
My guess is that this thread does read
pretty coherently - with Cantabb's pieces taken out of
direct view.
More incoherence.
Left only with your pieces (and lchic's), the forum would
look like what it has been: wandering in a forest of
self-created, unmitigated muddle. "Self aggrandizing" (as
fredmoore would say) or extreme delusion !
cantabb
- 12:38pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14413 of 17697)
rshow55 - 10:32am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14410 of 14411)
To resort so that cantabb's posts are hidden
from view (except of summaries, and links) would be a
reorganization.
Deal with my questions first. You obviously can NOT !
Reorganizations of many kinds are useful -
and provide crosschecking - and enhanced speed. Librarians
have known that for centuries - computer programmers know it
- and even kids ought to know it.
For an example, this linked summary of posts
on this thread is a reorganization for a purpose available
at
That "rethinking" - "resorting" and
"recollection" (recollection in several senses of the word)
is useful - and because of the speed with which human
cognition works - we know that a great deal of that sort of
sorting, collecting, and reconnecting goes on in individual
cognition.
It also goes on in discourse and we have the
tools to trace the process. This thread is a step towards
doing so. ...
More mindless ramblings.
To sort out missile defense or ANYTHING that
complicated - we have to be able to use that logic more
consistently - and have rules of fairness that permit
"connecting the dots" and CHECKING to go on repeatedly - to
convegence.
"To sort out missile defense or ANYTHING that complicated"
you have to FIRST have "the dots", relevant verifiable facts,
and then be able to "connect" them in a rational manner ---
the way it is usually done in case of issues, simple or
"complicated." NONE of which you have have or shown you
canm handle IF you miraculously had them
Peace, and in my opinion the survival of the
world - require people to learn this lesson.
A lesson you have NOT even begun to learn !!!
You can't even answer simple question on what
specifically you think you have been doing here and what
fraction of your claims you think you have achieved so far
!
bbbuck
- 01:22pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (#
14414 of 17697)
I think you're getting to him showalter.
It looks like the MWCBN is starting to crack.
Post your 10 part series of the 'complete postings of
rshowalter' and 'how I solved the world's problems and still
managed to post 20,000 times on the guardian all in May' the
rest of this month and I think you'll have beaten him.
(3283 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|