New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
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  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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 (3329 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:34am Jul 29, 2002 EST (# 3330 of 17697)
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.

Sometime, after 8:08 pm yesterday, and before wrcooper 7/28/02 9:27pm , "wrcooper" removed 22 of his postings, dating from July 15th (just before my main computer was knocked down.) I have the postings.

These postings represent serious effort on "wrcooper"'s part, and are neither casual nor honest.

I think most reasonable people reading these postings (and the way they associate in logic and time with Mazza's) -- and looking at the great efforts in them to defame me, and to defend and even glorfy George Johnson - would conclude what I've concluded.

I conclude that there is a very high likelyhood - not far short of a certainty - that wrcooper, kalter.rauch, mazza, and dirac are pseudonyms for George Johnson.

I believe that, because of postings on this thread since September 2000, especially those just deleted, and also because of very extensive private correspondence supporting the same inference.

For a lot of reasons, that inference should be checked. It can be.

I have the postings, and am looking at them.

This is a serious matter, and I'm dealing with it carefully.

lchic - 10:40am Jul 29, 2002 EST (# 3331 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

GJ Dreaming

mazza9 - 10:59am Jul 29, 2002 EST (# 3332 of 17697)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Kalter:

The real question is whether RShowalter=RShow55=RShowalt!

Who is the multiple personality?

Maybe a mythology has been created by Robert and his sidechic= lchic.

LuigiMazza

rshow55 - 12:32pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (# 3333 of 17697)
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.

RShowalter=RShow55=RShowalt . . . . I don't think there's been any doubt of that.

I notice that mazza9 7/29/02 11:59am , makes a "joke" -- but makes no effort to deny or in any way dispute what I call " a very high likelyhood - not far short of a certainty - that wrcooper, kalter.rauch, mazza, and dirac are pseudonyms for George Johnson." rshow55 7/29/02 9:34am

Some things ought to be checked. Because a good deal is involved.

Involved for me and the AEA investors of course -- and for Johnson, the "family man" wrcooper defended so actively.

But the national interest - and some significant interests of the New York Times are also involved.

Sorting out the truth, on a relatively few checkable points, would be worth a lot.

I've been playing it as straight and as honorably as I've known how. On issues where the stakes have been high.

For example. It appears very likely indeed (and this can be checked) that Condoleeza Rice has participated very actively on this thread -- which would mean that George Bush, and others high in the administration know about it, and care about it. Given some of the things gisterme has said and done (some, but not all, to his-her credit) that's an interesting question. Interesting in terms of national and international politics.

There are some other issues, too. Things worth checking.

The things that Eisenhower warned about in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm have happened. Getting some facts straight aobut what's happened on this thread, and checkable things I've said could take us a long way towards getting some important things fixed.

MD3295-96 rshowalt 7/26/02 7:15pm

I'm thinking about some questions.

What would "the average reader of The New York Times " want me to do now?

What would Bill Casey want me to do?

It seems to me that the answers involve getting some facts straight, about what has happened. I was asked to do a dangerous, hard job - a long time ago - under conditions where, again and again, I'd have to struggle with credentialling problems. I'm working to keep my promises - and take reasonable care of myself, as well.

lchic - 02:37pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (# 3334 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

lchic "Science in the News" 7/29/02 3:34pm

More Messages Recent Messages (14363 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense