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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

gisterme - 02:10pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13778 of 13824)

"The 'md' forum has a long, checkered, and storied past. Stretching almost back to february of 2002, with lchic giving the opening missives it stands proudly on it's longevity of all the science forums..."

Actually, bb this forum has gone on since long before Feb, 2002. It had nearly as many posts as it has now but was flushed out and restarted. So far as I know the NYT didn't archive any of what went before, not that it mattered much. It was just more of the SOS.

bbbuck - 02:17pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13779 of 13824)

Well I can't say I never make mistakes. Thanks for the correction.

Yes the past removed by a simple 'format c: / y ' .

times square-ha.

All gone except for some burned cd's done by our intrepid dot-connector.

cantabb - 02:31pm Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13780 of 13824)

fredmoore - 09:10am Sep 19, 2003 EST (# 13775 of 13775)

Wow What a selective, self-serving recall ! You think the entire exchange is NOT here to "check" ?

Let see :

People, people, Listen up! Some conflicts don't need a resolution .. just a clarification. That clarification is based on INTENT of the parties......

Trying to summarize my “intent,” you conveniently omitted the context, i.e., the reason for my suggestions [earlier you had also left out one of my 2 suggestions]. See :

“Close to 14,000 posts now, but I don't see the debate on this forum YET conforming to the stated Header : ....... Personal matters raised and discussed in endless circular references have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Forum Header. The debate does NOT even belong in a forum supposedly dedicated to "Science." Despite this and complainmts by various posters about the relevance of the content and how a "SCIENCE" forum is abused, its continuance thus far shows that NYT must really want to keep it wandering aimlessly ! It looks like a Chat room and a kitchen sink, par excellence.” cantabb - 08:31pm Sep 17, 2003 EST (# 13705 of 13773)

Then, a la you ‘idol’, you quote something from somewhere that you say “embodied” your “intent’, but don’t refer to your school-yard behavior and name-calling -- right from your VERY FIRST response to my suggestions: “Cantabelle,” “Cantabelle is a chook that pecks and pecks ...”, “Cassandrabelle,” and more, including a ditty.

Where was your so-called “intent” then ?

Now, which intent serves this forum and mankind the most? Which intent provokes annoyance?" You judge for yourselves.

And NO mention of the context of my suggestions or your juvenile actions, right from the VERY FIRST response ????

You want to continue business as usual ?

I have, as in my 'Sci News' confront with cantabb come to a point where I need say no more. His endless pedantic pecking as demonsrated here and in exchanges on the SCI News forum achieves nothing and is in the end obstructive to useful discourse.

Now, you’re trying to re-write recent history (still available through Search).

I believe that exchange involved freedom of speech, American style. You were not only thoroughly confused about it [Letterman jibe at NYT] but persisted over many posts your continued confusion (a DownUnder view of American ways). I thought we [see Volchin’s comments to you] gave you a good lesson on it.

No “useful discourse” occurs when you don’t know what you’re talking about, and remain unwilling to learn. What you got then was NOT “endless pedantic pecking,” BUT a correction to your understanding of what freedom of speech involves, in America –- not your view of it from somewhere DownUnder. What was “obstructive to useful discourse” was YOUR own resistance to understanding of the facts of the case and how our system works.

This, btw, should refresh your memory. And, those interested, but unfamiliar, can ‘check’ all this out: Starting with cantabb - 11:41pm May 16, 2003 EST (# 1489 of 2375) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?1@13.gKfQbUHeHtB.971888@.f2e4e35/1657 . And extending to cantabb - 10:48am May 20, 2003 EST (# 1568 of 2375)

PS RShow may be a pain 'in many ways that matter' but at least when you point it out to him in jest he does handle it with a certain Grace.

So that’s why you defend him so strongly ?

When you start with name-calling and juvenile behavior, don’t expect that you’ll be treated with ‘Grace’.

So shall we move on?

Difficult, isn’t it, when you keep defending the OLD ways on this forum, your juvenile behavior and re-writing such recent history.

(44 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense