rshow55 - 05:58am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17225 http://forums

rshow55 - 05:58am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17225 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18940

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

There are some "iron walls" that have to become more permeable to exchange of information - and to dealmaking that logically requires exceptional but clear "breaching" of those walls.

rshow55 - 06:15pm May 30, 2003 EST (# 12220 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.GfcHbeXyX3y.2661712@.f28e622/13858

Quick estimate. If I were permitted to function as Eisenhower intended - we could more than double economic growth rates - with much lower pollution - in ways people could clearly understand - in ways consistent with human values.

Reason is that, most of the time - the big showstoppers are few - and at times where there are no showstoppers - people can make a lot of progress.

For a long while past, energy has been the biggest showstopper - the biggest constraint on economic growth. The biggest military problem.

If you are asking for full and stable solutions to the world energy problem - as a whole - the number of kinds of possible solutions is a fairly short list.

Solar and nuclear power are two broad classifications on that list.

A comforting fact is that there are likely to be unique optimal solutions - far better than competitive solutions - if you can find them.

My main economic message is "you can."

rshow55 - 06:19pm May 30, 2003 EST (# 12222 of 15266)

Eisenhower was naive - a real boy scout - in one respect. He felt that - if the answers were available - the President of the United States, and the organization under the President - would have the wit to use those answers.

rshow55 - 06:30pm May 30, 2003 EST (# 12223 of 15266)

Solar energy's worth a look 12194 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/13832

http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm

"1,750 Gb, the estimate of all the conventional oil that there ever was or ever will be, is less than the amount of sunlight that hits the earth in one 24 hour day."

The best photocells have about 20% efficiency - lower efficiencies are easier.

Did some quick and dirty calculations.

If photocells could be mass produced and deployed in large scale mass production at these low prices - the world would have an essentially unlimited supply of energy (transported as hydrogen) at 10$/barrel oil energy equivalent before transportation costs.

For 5% net efficiency - $2.36/square meter

For 10% net efficiency - $4.72/square meter

- - - -

At a basic level - some of the world's most basic problems with poverty - and military conflict - are "as simple as meeting those prices."

Given an objective like that - getting to an optimal solution is mostly in the realm of Edison's "invention" - - where

"Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

But if the objectives are clearly defined - the perspiration is worth it because optimal solutions in terms of clear assumptions can be found. And reasonable assumptions can be arrived at.

So that problems can get permanently solved.

- - -

But I believe that all such solutions require patterns of planning that the United States used to identify with - but has rejected. That's a big reason I want permission (and yes, in practice, I need permission) to talk seriously to operations like Deutsche Bank Securities - that are in contact with more open-minded nation states than the US under GWB.

Here are summaries and links to much exposition on solving the world's energy problems using the "Eisenhower scale" optimal solutions

13039 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14716

13040 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14717

13041 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14718

13042 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14719

If this thread is deleted without being archived - those links will take work to rec

rshow55 - 06:02am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17226 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18941

If this thread is deleted without being archived - the links above, and many others, will take work to reconstitute on http://www.mrshowalter.net/ or elsewhere. I'm having to anticipate that that will happen - because I'm having ( to quote a line from the movie Cool Hand Luke - "a problem of communication."

The whole culture now has a web of "problems of communication" that cut off a great deal of hope - but there may be orderly, symettric, and (more-or-less) harmonious ways to improve that situation.

The best of them would make the king of the New York Times happier - and the NYT a better, more prosperous organization - with enhanced status.

In the near term, I expect a train wreck instead. But right now, I just happen to be smiling. I know that won't last.

- - - - - -

If you study how the railroads were built in the US - all the techniques that actually worked were outlawed. For pretty good reasons - overwhelmingly reasons of fairness.

We have to consider fairness. But also find ways that work. I'm wondering whether, and if so how, I might be able to coerce or cajole the New York Times into actually letting the work on this thread be effective.

Sometimes, as Casey told me

"it is easier to get permission than it is to get permission."

Though, quite often, permission helps. Sometimes it happens by inches.

----------------

rshow55 - 10:57am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17264 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18979

Let's suppose I attacked you on television - and made incompletely supported claims - and asked for money in a way associated with chicanery before - offering people copies of NYT copyrighted material, without permission, while doing so. Maybe using the names of NYT celebrities without their permission . . . . but with full disclosure of what I was doing and why.

And in ways that a lot of people would judge to be "for a good cause" - and totally above board. Noble even.

A kind of "uncivil disobedience".

Maybe for a series of days. Maybe with some e-mail and web activity to back up this effort. Maybe for a lot of money . .

Just musing here . . .

Would the gray lady just ignore such impertenance ?

She might try . . . .

. . . .

just musing . . . .

cantabb - 10:59am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17265 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18980

rshow55 - 10:41am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17260 of 17262)

More implied threats to NYT ?

Of course, I've never done anything like that in the past, so it might backfire.

You never know.

To produce stable "fights" - you don't want to give the other guy a chance.

What's a "stable" fight ? If not in a stable. You mean a perpetual state of fighting ? Or fighting with a "stable" mind ?

Re-visiting your teenage/pre-teen "fighting"? Or still wrapped up in it ?

So I'm thinking about giving an "exact" warning on what I'd like to do. So defenses can be cleanly set up. Defenses that are well set up are usually very unstable.

Negotiating lawyers think through patterns like this all the time . . . .

When they're dealing with people of the same culture - who know each other well enough to judge what makes sense.

Between nation states - these patterns have been very unstable.

We need to fix that. Prototyping could be useful. With real stakes, but small ones.

How could I line up the NYT so that they were so pressed, so desperate, that they could actually make some money on this thread - and do some things they half want to do?

That would make a win-win solution possible.

It would take a calibrated, credible threat, with the right timing and the right geometry - and an alternative that worked much better available as well. Sometimes, in such circumstances - there is no alternative to getting just to the edge of a fight - and stepping back.

Maybe after a skirmish or two.

Problem is - this is unstable. So lawyers often discuss what their principles can and will do to each other - and, from time to time, settlements happen. Including some very good deals.

rshow55 - 11:00am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17266 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18981

You guys might be forced to accept a part of a solar energy deal, for example.

Maybe not forced . . . but tempted.

Maybe we could get Howell Raines to mediate the dispute . .

Of maybe you could be forced to break a story - -

Or sue me, under conditions where names and circumstances might be hard to keep under cover - especially if I could get a few hundred journalists watching . . .

rshow55 - 11:03am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17267 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/18982

If you guys could be forced to let me have some information - - then I might be able to get some very long suffering AEA investors paid.

Might to go jail for security fraud in the process - but the evidence to send me up would be enough to get the AEA investors compensated - and odds are my term would be short.

And I'd have my good name when I came out -

lchic - 11:06am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17268 of 17271)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

media criticism and research

http://www.world-newspapers.com/media.html

-------------

)

rshow55 - 08:41am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17484 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19199

It can't be a secret that I've been asking the NYT for help on a large scale solar energy project. The only reasonable and possible help requires some exception handling - because, for the NYT to help, the NYT has to make some money doing it. Within reasonable journalistic constraints and business constraints.

I'd like to have a situation where the NYT was treated as well, in terms of "sunk costs" of this thread - as first round financing investors are treated. ( By the way, Bill Casey headed the SEC for some while - and I think I know what fair dealing - within securities laws, is in these affairs. )

It would make sense to us to come to an agreement where I have a chance to treat the NYT fairly, in a situation that is currently de facto , an exploitation. It would be good for me. If I'm technically right ( and there are ways of finding that out relatively cheaply ) it might be a chance for the NYT to solve some of its most basic economic and situational problems.

It would make a lot of things more pleasant, better rounded, from a lot of points of view.

For that, the NYT would have to have the negotiating skills Carl Sagan had - which weren't too fancy, but were dead solid. Carl was my first investor. We cut a workable deal that was fair, proportionate, and flexible in a few minutes. We both knew each other well. We didn't trust each other all that much, either. But we could talk to each other. I'm still working within the framework of that deal, as well as I can.

I think, just now, that the New York Times is doing an academy award worthy job of showing how capitalism is not supposed to work in the United States.

cantabb - 08:48am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17485 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19200

rshow55 - 03:54am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17480 of 17481)

Another repost: Had responded to before [ cantabb - 04:35pm Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17428 of 17433)], and here's more.

I'm writing a letter, and trying to establish common ground. Some of the story of this thread has resemblances to the plot of My Fair Lady - and lyrics of songs in that great show.

Eliza, a person of very low status

Is taken in by a powerful man of enormously greater accomplishment and wealth- and much reason to be pleased with his status and position. Professor Henry Higgins.

Who does the lowly shop girl the enormous favor - at no cost - of teaching her to speak. And she's lamentably slow as a learner, too. Even so, Eliza has the temerity to have some feelings of hostility.

When Higgins triumphs at the royal ball, where she performs flawlessly, he doesn't think about her feelings, and she feels slighted, which is surely unfair in the larger scheme of things . .

And in fact, this lowly girl has hostile feelings - and has concerns - serious concerns - about her "end game."

Since you reposted all this AFTER my earlier response to it, I suppose you did reconsider this carefully. In any case:

With “resemblances” that you point out here, are you STILL suggesting that: lchic (your “World Asset”) is like “Eliza Doolittle,” of My Fair Lady ?

It seems to me that there are analogies to behavior here.

IF you see that and say so.

I'm also trying to liken the thread to another low status institution - important to some - not worthy of notice to others

How could this MD thread be “another low status institution” when, as you had often insisted, Clinton, GWB, Putin, Rice, etc have been posting under different User IDs?

Maybe it's much too late, but I'm a slow learner - and I'm trying for some common ground.

It IS “much too late” and you are a “slow learner” if you STILL don’t see the end and are busy looking for “some common ground,” after having been “gracefully” shown the door.

I'm hoping for at least a chance to have a "win-win" solution that is stable, and works better than the one we're headed into. On the one hand, I'm happy that the thread is ending. It seems a shame that the thread is not being archived, at least for a while. And some other things seem sad, too. Opportunities are being missed.

What “Win-Win” solution (“stable” at that) are you trying to salvage this late ?

Sure you are “happy” the Forum is shutting down: “happy” as a person who STILL has a lot of unresolved problems, and lot of overt/covert, explicit/implicit resentment and finger-pointing.

lchic doesn’t seem to be this “happy,” though, and I’ve looked for a glimpse of it in her stream of hostile accusatory posts.

As I see it, the only person who missed the "opportunities" has been YOU, along with lchic, of course !

No body could be happier that you are so “happy.” BUT why ALL this ruefulness? Why another re-hash ? And Why NOT leave ‘happily’ instead.

Anyway, if it was possible for me to find proper ways to thank the NYT enough, and pay the NYT enough - I'd sure like to.

Why bother now, you’ve been far too “grateful” far too many times already.

rshow55 - 03:56am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17481 of 17481)

My 26 October letter to Sulzberger includes this. …..

At the end of my phone call to Apcar, I felt all that was very close. It has slipped away. Since that time, there have been missteps, stasis, unnecessary losses, ….

I'd hoped to resolve the problems involved in a few hours of face to face contact. That would have been, and I think should have been possible.

- - - - - - - --

rshow55 - 09:20am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17490 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19205

I'm not sure you read this before your last post. I'll repeat my point - which isn't going to go away.

I have to ask that whatever the NYT tells other people about me they also tell me - so I can respond.

For everybody's protection. To keep things straight.

That has to be in writing in a case like this - with the background that applies here.

rshow55 - 11:30am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17511 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19226

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/19221

I have to be told, in writing, that whatever the NYT tells other people about me they also tell me - so I can respond.

The draft letter I read over Apcar's phone and have posted here could be refered to to clarify what I was not asking for, and not being given.

I'd like to talk to a human being about that - so wording could fit for us both.

I'd offer to make the concessions (for example about the solar energy proposal) that I've discussed here, and we could work out language if there was an interest. If it wasn't, that would be fine.

I'd be most comfortable meeting face to face - but a phone call with a competent attorney might suffice for everything that matters. The phone call would have to be followed up with writing - and if we were close to a meeting of the minds - getting that to closure could happen quickly.

I'm looking forward to walking away from these boards and actually getting applied work done.

rshow55 - 11:33am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17513 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19228

Anyone who has actually had to act administratively knows you're being insensitive. And insensitive to how much damage the NYT can be doing - just from negligence.

bluestar23 - 11:35am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17514 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19229

"actually getting applied work done"

On what..? What is this "work" going to be about..?

- - - -

rshow55 - 11:38am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17515 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19230

I want to work to actually get the solar energy project described here done. That's a very high priority to me - and to do it - I need a defined relationship with the NYT, good enough for an investment banker or a private detective. So people can make decisions.

There are other alternatives I have - and they typically require the same clarity.

bluestar23 - 11:43am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17516 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19231

You are a meaningless peon to NYT, Showalter....one of tens of thousands of (AB)normal registered users, nothing more....they have no "solar project" to "work on" with you.....they are not a scientific research organization...

rshow55 - 11:44am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17517 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19232

The NYT may have to rethink how it treats other people - even meaningless peons.

lchic - 11:56am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17518 of 17522)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Blue-y

http://www.growingresults.com/prod/1891984772.html

--------------------

insensitive -- deficient in human sensibility; not mentally or morally sensitive

cantabb - 12:03pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17519 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19234

rshow55 - 11:30am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17511 of 17515)

I have to be told, in writing, that whatever the NYT tells other people about me they also tell me - so I can respond.

The same "have to be told" and doing things someone "would approve of" servile approach.

Ask NYT. Why are you so concerned what anyone would say about you (without your knowledge) ?

Where's THEIR freedom of expression ? Check with your attorney to see if you have a leg to stand on...

I'd like to talk to a human being about that - so wording could fit for us both.

From what you posted here so far, they are NOT interested in any negotiations with YOU. They've shown you the door, rather "gracefully" I thought.

I'd offer to make the concessions (for example about the solar energy proposal) that I've discussed here, and we could work out language if there was an interest. If it wasn't, that would be fine.

Why should anyone have anything to do with your proposal on anything.

What "concession" are you talking about ?

Didn't you say they're NOT interested in meeting you. Kate_nyt has clarified how the forum will go tomorrow.

You seem to have NO basis for ANY demands.

I'm looking forward to walking away from these boards and actually getting applied work done.

You may want to think so -- but you've been shown the door, more "gracefully" than anyone would have expected.

rshow55 - 11:33am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17513 of 17515)

Anyone who has actually had to act administratively knows you're being insensitive. And insensitive to how much damage the NYT can be doing - just from negligence.

ALL in your mind. Just think of how you have abused this thread for so LONG ! You were operating here, by default (NO NYT moderator).

rshow55 - 11:38am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17515 of 17515)

I want to work to actually get the solar energy project described here done. That's a very high priority to me - and to do it -

Then do it -- like anyone would.

I need a defined relationship with the NYT, good enough for an investment banker or a private detective. So people can make decisions.

You don't need to have any one to get funds (federal/state/private) to support you and your ideas. Why do you have to depend ONLY on NYT or anyone for that matter ? What's the point of a "private detective" here ? Who're the people making "decisions" for you ?

There are other alternatives I have - and they typically require the same clarity.

Take it up with NYT.

Leave this dying thread alone, for Pete's sake !!!

With ALL the threats, demands and paranoia and ranting/whining -- you do NOT sound "happy" as you say you are at this thread's demise ! You've done ENOUGH for it !

- - - -

cantabb - 01:15pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17531 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19249

rshow55 - 12:12pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17521 of 17524)

ARE YOU KIDDING ? DO YOU INHABIT PLANET EARTH ?

Rank Nonsense

You tell me what planet you think you have been living on -- given your comments and "work" and "claims" here ?

You think you CAN restrict someone else's freedom of speech ? Check with your attorney, BEFORE you start believing in this last ditch threat.

Find out what's libelous anbd actionable while you are at it.

That's the most insensitive thing I think I've ever heard. If a NYT employee said that - he should be cashieired .

Reality hurts ! Worse if concerns you and your cherished fantasies.

What would NYT do to its emplyees ? Ask Sulzberger, if you can talk to him.

Leave the rest of your whining there, but I doubt you can.

Also, tell us what has your "Solar Energy" proposal got to do with MD ????

rshow55 - 12:15pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17522 of 17524)

Say it ain't so. I was so looking forward to having the thread go down at midnight tonight .

Don't know what Kate_nyt's timing. Ask her. It'll stay Nov 13, till midnight.

So get your "outrages" and "threats" lined up !

lchic - 12:18pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17523 of 17524)

cashiered from : Dutch casseren, from Old French casser, to dismiss, annul. / quash

Find out also (wouldn't be in your dictionary) what the heck NYT can do to an independent minded non-employee, under no obligation to them or their "stock-holders" ?

Saw "Pusillanimous" in your dictionary YET ?

lchic - 12:34pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17524 of 17524)

Cantabbulation - 58 days of it - TWO months - weeks + weekends think of sickdays and vacations --- that's almost 1/4 of the workingYear and come to think of it the ECHOING CANTABBULATOR was sick - most days and then there was Blue and Fred and 'The Poster' and Jorian

See who's counting !

How time flies ! Each person has his/her own way. Your fantasies and paranoid speculations are matched only by your leader, your Professor Higgins, RShowalter !

Nothing you two say makes sense --

So how was this effort funded .... internal to NYT does NYT have an alliance with some sort of Agency --- if that's taxpayerfunded -- who makes the dollar decisions?

NOT by NYT, Commandant.

BUT how was YOUR dedicated effort funded for 3+ years ? You never did say, Commandant ? We ALL can make some last minute guesses about that too!

Any financial interest in the settlement/solution rshow55 is seeking ?

Cantabbulator book yourself in for a 'refit' at the workshop Friday ... with luck you'll emerge 'your old self' again .... if only those guys at the 'shop' can persever with the loop testing.

I wouldn't worry that much about it.

It's about YOUR plans after Friday that the "world" seems worried about ! Thousands of lives and peace and stability of the world at stake ?

I know you'll be here, somewhere on NYT ! So, might rshow55 ! But what about the helpless world and lives --- WITHOUT your attention ?

Any ball Professor Higgins have in mind for you, b Eliza ?

cantabb - 01:16pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17532 of 17538)

"Any ball Professor Higgins have in mind for you, Eliza ?"

Last sentence from above post !

lchic - 01:19pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17533 of 17538)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

" The statesman who has no other object than to make you vote for his party at the next election, may be starting you on an incline at the foot of which lies war, or revolution, or ... " Shaw

jorian319 - 01:23pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17534 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19249

"I have to be told, in writing, that whatever the NYT tells other people about me they also tell me - so I can respond."

WHAAAT??

I think you need to hold the Hindustan Times to the same standard. Plus the Deseret News, The Times-Intelligencer, The Guardian, of course, and every other publication in the world that might possibly say something about you without your knowledge.

You have a lot of requests to write, Bob!

If it's any consolation, the New York Times hasen't said squat about you, Robert. And it would be hard to foresee any circumstance that would cause that to change.

- - - - -

rshow55 - 04:42pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17589 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19304

Though I'm willing to be "corrupted" , within limits.

Just a guess. By a reasonable corporate accounting, New York Times Company has had direct and opportunity costs connected with this thread of about half a million dollars. For a company that isn't especially flush with cash or management time.

Suppose so, just for the argument.

That would easily get NYT Company 10% of the solar energy deal - which would be enough to actually make it work - assuming, as I do, that the technical barriers are small - but the negotiation barriers large.

rshow55 - 04:47pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17590 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19305

With somebody like Howell Raines managing the negotiating side - that could easily mature into an income stream in excess of 1 billion $/year. More than your current profit. And a feather in the cap of New York Times on the Web.

The deal could be set up at no marginal cost to NYT - from where we are - except that it would require you to be honest - and do some clear (and fully defensible) exception handling.

- - -

And if the deal, which would be known to be risky financially - went down - as risky deals often do - -there need be no dishonor or cash loss to the TIMES .

Just a thought .

Not that I need NYT to get involved.

But I need in writing a framework that permits me to function.

wrcooper - 05:02pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17591 of 17595)

R Showalter wrote:

But I need in writing a framework that permits me to function.

Okay, here it is:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

rshow55 - 05:10pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17592 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19307

Cooper , you're being naive. I appreciate the Constitution - but it doesn't do everything I need.

I've asked for what I need - and I've said what I'll try to do if I don't get it.

The New York Times has a decision to make.

I'm pretty sure what my decisions will be, under the conditions I've thought about - but I'm willing to talk to The New York Times - not to you.

- - - - -

cantabb - 06:12pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17597 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19312

rshow55 - 04:29pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17588 of 17595)

If nobody can actually check anything that actually matters - that undermines the basic charter - the basic trust - that sustain The New York Times .

I know this much: YOU do not “check” facts, and you don’t know much about relevance, so relevant facts are out of the question. In view of this, it’s not difficult to imagine how little “basic trust” you can expect from others.

You'd do much better on the side of getting right answers - than on the side of resisting the mechanisms necessary to getting them.

What’s “right” answer to these questions: What is it that you have been working on here for 3+ years, and what have you achieved vs your claims ? Why have you been “resisting” answering this ?

Not only that, I'm going to do my best to insist - within my small power - for a lot of reasons.

Go ahead. Good luck !

rshow55 - 04:42pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17589 of 17595)

Though I'm willing to be "corrupted" , within limits.

Really ?

Suppose so, just for the argument.

That would easily get NYT Company 10% of the solar energy deal - which would be enough to actually make it work - assuming, as I do, that the technical barriers are small - but the negotiation barriers large.

So, you are interested in some funds from NYT for “solar energy deal” ?

NOT for MD – on which you claim you’ve been working so hard on for 3+ years ?

I knew there had to be some financial interest ! And, IS this what you have been demanding from NYT ?

rshow55 - 04:47pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17590 of 17595)

The deal could be set up at no marginal cost to NYT - from where we are - except that it would require you to be honest - and do some clear (and fully defensible) exception handling.

Raines doesn’t work/live there anymore ! Doubt if they’d have anything to do with him now.

And if the deal, which would be known to be risky financially - went down - as risky deals often do - -there need be no dishonor or cash loss to the TIMES . Just a thought . Not that I need NYT to get involved. But I need in writing a framework that permits me to function.

If you don’t “need NYT to get involved” WHY the heck are you demanding anything from NYT ?

It's o-v-e-r !! Thanks to your and lchic's efforts !

bluestar23 - 06:32pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17598 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19313

What incredible Showalter confusion, mis-statements about reality, wild stories of joining H. Raines in billion-dollar projects....really, Showalter is just so delusional, paranoid...

bluestar23 - 06:35pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17599 of 17614)

rshow55:

" New York Times Company has had direct and opportunity costs connected with this thread of about half a million dollars."

Isn't this the most ridiculous example of Showalter's total lack of reality...this thread costs almost nothing in itself...to say it costs NYT, $500,000 to run this discussion is so wildly crazy....

cantabb - 06:45pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17600 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19315

BlueS:

Why can't he take his proposal on "Solar Energy" and submit it to an appropriate federal/private agency for funding ? Like most other scientists/researchers do it routinely !

Remember he wants $$$ for "Solar Energy" through this thread on Missile Defense, on which he was supposedly working so hard for 3+ years.

What did he think he was working on ? And saving thousands of lives on the side.

Or, submit one to NYT and see if they can or are interested in funding it -- instead of "demanding" FUNDS from them, with threats and imposing ridiculous conditions.

May be he's afraid he'd be laughed out !

- - - - -

rshow55 - 06:46pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17601 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19316

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/19314

This thread costs almost nothing in itself . . .

Well, that depends on who the posters are. For example, Cantabb has been flooding this board with stuff that I know I'd be ashamed to be associated with - for the last 58 days. Now if, perchance, cantabb is a NYT employee ( and no, I don't put any weight in his denials of that at all ) - that's a piece of change. And a loss of good will within the organization, too - if cantabb's not entirely a volunteer. I bet his associates are holding their noses. Some other efforts - - monitoring and what-not, would mount up.

. . . If Jorian has some rank - and his attention is a scarce commodity - and if gisterme takes some care and feeding - - - well, I've got no way of knowing.

cantabb - 06:50pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17602 of 17614)

BlueS:

Another contradiction : RShowalter and lchic constantly criticizing NYT for the Blair affair -- just like many other people. But he's asking for Raines' mediation, the person implicated in the Blair affair for which he hasd to resign (and I doubt NYT would have much to do with him now).

rshow55 - 06:50pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17603 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19318

For any large scale project to work - the mechanism has to be a mixed capitalism. I couldn't imagine applying for federal funding - with the egalitarian rules there.

If you're looking to implement a unique optimal solution - ( as the steel wheel on a steel rail is an optimal solution ) and it takes large scale coordination - the federal government is not the way to go - without direct support from the President of the United States - and wasn't in the 1950's either.

I was assigned to find ways that could work. That's what AEA was about. First, the technical problems have to be solved.

Then the socio-technical problems.

The political context of federal funding isn't remotely built for actually getting large scale jobs done. Not for the jobs I've been looking at, anyway.

rshow55 - 06:58pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17604 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19319

. Cantabb: Another contradiction : RShowalter and lchic constantly criticizing NYT for the Blair affair -- just like many other people. But he's asking for Raines' mediation, the person implicated in the Blair affair for which he hasd to resign (and I doubt NYT would have much to do with him now).

No contradiction at all. Raines was an excellent man - with many accomplishments - who made a big mistake. And alienated some people. At the same time - he knows every aspect of the world socio-technical system from a news perspective - Raines and Sulzberger used to be close - and he'd be just the man to run the negotiating end of the solar energy project. He's forceful. He's smart. He knows how opinion making works. He ran a very good company very well.

I'd be honored to meet with him.

And if he was tapped to do an "ad hoc committee for the arrest, conviction, and crucifixion of M. Robert Showalter" level due diligence investigation of me and my technical work - employing detectives, technical consultants, the works - - he could get it done. And people would believe what he said - if he gave people ways to check what he said. Which he could, and would if asked. ( I'd ask him to do so. )

I bet the top people who worked with Raines before might be pleased to work with him again in the new capacity.

And I think we'd have a very good chance of solving both the world's energy problem - and global warming - in a sustainable and economically profitable system.

If, by chance, I was "full of the old stuff" - Raines and people he could find and run could uncover the flaws soon enough.

He has a widely respected sense of fairness , too.

bluestar23 - 07:00pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17605 of 17614)

"(and I doubt NYT would have much to do with him now)."

Interviewer: "Who is Howell Raines?"

P. Sulzberger: "Who...?..never heard the name...."

- - - - -

cantabb - 08:05pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17615 of 17617)

rshow55 - 06:50pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17603 of 17611)

For any large scale project to work - the mechanism has to be a mixed capitalism. I couldn't imagine applying for federal funding - with the egalitarian rules there. … The political context of federal funding isn't remotely built for actually getting large scale jobs done. Not for the jobs I've been looking at, anyway.

If Federal funding is NOT “built” for large scale jobs in “Solar Energy” (one of its active programs), YOU expect NYT will have that kind of money ?

It seems you’re pursuing some other financial interest with NYT.

rshow55 - 06:58pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17604 of 17611)

No contradiction at all. Raines was an excellent man - with many accomplishments - who made a big mistake..... He ran a very good company very well.

That was NOT the point. He’s an excellent newsman, but what mediation skills does he have that’ll help you ???

Contradiction is: On the one hand, Your (and lchic's) criticism of Blair affair and hitting NYT and Raines for his "big mistake" (that you now generously forgive), and asking for his help in mediation (not quite known for this skill) with NYT, which I doubt would want such close contact with him now.

Your naivete !

And if he [Howell Raines] was tapped to do an "ad hoc committee for the arrest, conviction, and crucifixion of M. Robert Showalter" level due diligence investigation of me and my technical work - employing detectives, technical consultants, the works - - he could get it done. And people would believe what he said - if he gave people ways to check what he said. Which he could, and would if asked. ( I'd ask him to do so. )

What the hell are you talking about ? You ARE now showing signs of tremendous stress !!! Took your pills today ?

If, by chance, I was "full of the old stuff" - Raines and people he could find and run could uncover the flaws soon enough.

Most of the flaws have already been uncovered right here, some in the last 58 days.

rshow55 - 07:00pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17606 of 17612)

A lot of problems could be solved if I got Raines phone number - and the right introduction. Something H. L. Menken might write - applied to the case - written by Arthur Sulzberger. Not trusting. Something that asked "could you check this ? " Money for the due diligence could be found easily with a few phone calls.

Why not ask your private detectives for helkp !

rshow55 - 07:26pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17612 of 17612)

In case anybody wonders - I take derogatory things said about me seriously. And unlike cantabbb and bluestar - I'm using my own name.

Remember the “derogatory things” (lying etc) you have said about me and others – and you are a known, named entity.

You guys look pretty vincible to me. . . . . .

And that was shown in the last 8 weeks, right ?

HINT: Look at your posts, now in smithereens. You’re still delusion, still in denial. That’s expected to last some more time.

Stipping off the anonymous identities of the posters would be a thing worth writing home about. . . .

What the heck you think you can do IF the identities were known ? b Personal threats and physical violence ?

Knowing “anonymous” lchic’s affiliations and sponsors would be quite interesting too. Shouldn’t be difficult.

I'd rather make a deal, of course. But fighting isn't necessarily such a bad thing, either.

Deal on what ?

When I called Apcar today, he accidentally picked up the phone and actually said something. When he heard it was me, he dropped the phone in what seemed to have been panic - and then gave me a dial tone . When I called back, I was able to get his answering machine.

He must have been shivering in his shoes and scared stiff realizing it was YOU !

Why shouldn't I fight, if I c

cantabb - 08:06pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17616 of 17617)

rshow55 - 07:26pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17612 of 17612)

Why shouldn't I fight, if I can't be dealt with as a human being? People thinking about peacemaking should ask such questions. Just for balance.

Do whatever you feel necessary. You’re NOT indentured. You're a free man. Don’t just talk and talk and talk about “fighting” – DO something about it; show it to NYT or whosoever you want to.

....

rshow55 - 01:11am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17672

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19387

Error ? Well maybe - I figured that eventually people would believe enough of my story that I could do the things that I was trained to do in the first place.

If you guys don't stop me - I may have a chance of doing the things I've been working on - solar energy and clean water, for example.

And some differential equations stuff.

Stubborn and determined foes can stop anyone.

But why would anyone try to stop inocuous little old me ?

rshow55 - 01:14am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17673

And I still think that things would sort out better for NYT if they'd meet with me.

I'm signing off . Had a computer crash, and little sleep, last night.

cantabb - 01:45am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17676 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19391

bluestar23 - 12:58am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17665 of 17675)

Well, Cantabb, I think we have to give you the credit for bringing the Reign of Showalter here to an end. If you hadn't come on the forum, and complained, the farce might have gone on much longer....

Thank you, bluestar !

It took lot of work from others too (you, Klsanford0 and others). But it's nice to see the abuse that went on relentlessly and unchecked for 3+years ending in 8 short weeks -- something that some forum regulars had insisted was impossible and waste etc.

Now just hours away .....

Tick, tick, tick....

cantabb - 02:06am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17677

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19392

rshow55 - 01:00am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17667 of 17676)

You guys are going to take down this thread tonight, aren't you?

Upto NYT & Kate !

Please ?

You don't want her to ? Or, asking her to put you out of your misery -- and SOON ?

bluestar23 - 01:06am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17670 of 17676)

Showalter made an error in not believing his opponents were just as or more stubborn and determined as himself.....

As I mentioned before, I had been watching this thread for sometime. Was surprised that it was allowed to go on. My first post (Sept 17) summarized my impressions. That brought out LOT of angry response from the 'regulars' ! And, it went on from there.

rshow55 - 01:11am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17672 of 17676)

Error ? Well maybe - I figured that eventually people would believe enough of my story that I could do the things that I was trained to do in the first place.

If you guys don't stop me - I may have a chance of doing the things I've been working on - solar energy and clean water, for example. And some differential equations stuff.

And you WERE using this thread on Missile Defense to supposedly do work on Solar Energy and Clean Water ? And that's how you were saving thousands of lives and trying to bring out peace and stability in the world ? And, you have been trying to justify you "WORK" on this here, and demanding $$$ and other things from NYT ? And, you vigorously defended this hoax and this abuse, under our questioning in the past 8 weeks ? How shameless !

Stubborn and determined foes can stop anyone. But why would anyone try to stop inocuous little old me ?

Because you WERE so blatantly and extensively abusing your posting privilege for 3+ years !

rshow55 - 01:14am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17673 of 17676)

And I still think that things would sort out better for NYT if they'd meet with me.

Too late, pal. Mostly YOUR fault !

I'm signing off . Had a computer crash, and little sleep, last night.

I know the stress you must have been under for the past 8 weeks. NOw, all by yourself -- NO help from "world Asset" lchic or from the veld-barnyard.

cantabb - 02:07am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17678 of 17681)

bluestar23 - 01:30am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17674 of 17676)

lchic, where are you...?

'Minding' the baby that apparently needs no attention !

Must be "freaked out" too, as rshow says.

cantabb - 02:37am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17679 of 17681)

Bluestar23:

In the words of lchic:

"It got understood and exposed" -- finally.

And "ultimately TRUTH outs" -- may be after 3+ years !

I've asked rshow55 to come back and discuss anything IF (not when) he can "do a better job of finding truth" !

jorian319 - 08:45am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17680 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@@.f28e622/19395

"It got understood and exposed" -- finally.

LOL!

mistakes made by members of the administration on this thread...

Test.....test....test...

is this thing live?

Between all the NYT staffers, and "members of the administration", it's a wonder that any of us can get a post in edgewise!

Thanks, cantabb, bluestar and others for finally bringing this pot to a boil. I guess it's just about tea time. (Or tee time.)