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 (4136 previous messages)

wrcooper - 07:17pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4137 of 17697)

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 - 07:26pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4138 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.

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 - 07:37pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4139 of 17697)

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.

rshow55 - 08:19pm Sep 2, 2002 EST (# 4140 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.

wrcooper 9/2/02 8:37pm . . . so my "opinions represent a dangerous aberration that requires the strongest possible refutation."

Taking that sort of position - and knowing how indirect enronation is - how much can be subverted - and how much stolen?

This thread may well work for pretrial discovery.

And we have an audience.

Some of my personal background - and to some degree the story of my somewhat unusual life, is set out in readable form in these links (3894-3904):

rshow55 8/22/02 2:29pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:31pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:37pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:37pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:38pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:42pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:45pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:51pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:53pm
rshow55 8/22/02 2:59pm
rshow55 8/22/02 3:12pm

Especially 3902 rshow55 8/22/02 2:53pm

More Messages Recent Messages (13557 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