New York Times on the Web Forums Science

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?

gisterme - 07:28pm Jan 2, 2002 EST (#10615 of 10657)

lchic 1/1/02 1:44am

"...~ The point re the 'casualty' story was not the casualty - rather the 'exclusion' of the US citizens regarding news of the matter..."

What do you mean? The "casualty" story was reported as a headline under a couple of different web publications. The story was essentially the same as posted in the Guardian. Don't you know that the NYT is not the only news source in the US, lchic? Personally I'm not the least bit upset with the NYT for not making that a major headline since the veracity of the "sources" is at best questionable.

I'd suggest that the poster on the other forum that drew the conclusion that the story was "denied" US readers should do a little more research before drawing such general conclusions.

lchic - 07:32pm Jan 2, 2002 EST (#10616 of 10657)

At least that poster is alive, interesting, interested and real .. perhaps he should be posting here .. this board went 'downhill' when Showalter was cut - don't you agree!

gisterme - 07:37pm Jan 2, 2002 EST (#10617 of 10657)

idenbade 1/2/02 6:14pm

"...The below speaks for itself!..."

According to folk wisdom, "Birds of a feather flock together".

gisterme - 08:58pm Jan 2, 2002 EST (#10618 of 10657)

lchic 1/2/02 7:32pm

"...this board went 'downhill' when Showalter was cut - don't you agree!..."

If that is intended to be a question, lchic, I must say it's a difficult one for me.

I like Robert and have a lot of respect for him/her. I also admire Robert's tirelessness in hard work even though I don't agree with much of what was said.

Lchic, do you know a person with whom you can't really carry on a converstaion because they would much rather speak than listen? You know, the kind who won't let anybody else get a word in edgewise? One who only gets louder when others try to present a diffeing view? Posting huge volumes of words is the web-forum equivalent of that. It's the equivalent of shouting.

The only way I was even able say anything that might be considered by others than Robert or a couple of other "regulars" (such as the object of my recent presumpiton) was to put out a significant volume of stuff (shout) myself. All that does for the poor person who wants to "just follow along" with perhaps an occasional post is make it nearly impossible to do so. Whispers or "still small voices" are effectively excluded from such discourse...any validity of arguement those folks may have is denied them.

The point is that unless someone has time to follow a huge volume of stuff on the forum, they'd only get the points of view of those who post reams of stuff...and see their own contributions swept away before they could be read by others like themselves. That amounts to a kind of censorship of those who may have useful opinons but can't devote the kind of time necessary to really follow the massive volume of words or contribute same. In the Showalter case, that was exacerbated by the fact that many of Robert's posts were "re-posts" of the same stuff...I found myself needing to say the same things over again, as if Robert couldn't remember that they had been said before in response to the same statemets! It often seemed to me that Robert was more interested in volume of words than quality of content...and much of what he/she posted was more about Cold-War strategy and the politics of that bygone era than development of missile defense or current political reality as they may relate. As I recall I said as much at the time, in a rather irritated way. I was irritated! :-)

So the question of Robert is a hard one for me. I don't know if it is in his/her nature to be able to post in a more moderate and interactive way. I don't recall having ever met an opinonated "big talker" who managed to master the art of quiet converstaion; but if Robert could do so that could be benefical for the forum. I'd be the first to welcome Robert back in that case. LOL.

rshow55 - 09:06pm Jan 2, 2002 EST (#10619 of 10657)

.

I don't know whether I'll be banned, for posting this. If I'm not, I'll surely try to moderate my word count. Even so, there are some things I posted, in the last 15 months, since September 25, 2000, that I'm proud of.

I worked very hard, with Lunarchic, to set up a pattern of words and arguments that would permit dialog between the American and Russian points of view -- in ways I felt it was vital to do. I think that the dialog, both when gisterme and I we were in agreement, and when we were not, was useful.

Happenings after September 11, it seems to me, worked better because some of the things Lunarchic and I were permitted to suggest on this forum seemed to have been factored into decisions.

Perhaps they would have been if we'd not posted at all. Perhaps the work we did made no difference.

But we were trying to serve the national and the world human interest (in an area where they ought to be the same) and did our best.

It seemed to me that I wasn't the only poster who devoted careful time to the forums -- gisterme's and almarst's posting were both extensive and impressive, I believe. Sometimes, so extensive that they looked like staffed responses. And some other people seemed to pay attention, too.

If I were readmitted, I'd surely try to respond more moderately -- much more moderately. For a lot of reasons. One, I feel a lot safer, as far as nuclear risks go, than I did January of last year. Two, things I put aside this year, because of my concern (right or wrong) for national risks, have to be done.

(38 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense