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.

cantabb - 10:42am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13907 of 13910)

bluestar23 - 12:56am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13897 of 13905)

Maybe the Mods. should take a look at this thread.....it's pretty appalling....worse than just a personality disorder...its too bad because MD is interesting.

Doesn’t look like the NYT Moderators have bothered to do that. YET !

Agree with your assessment of this thread.

cantabb - 10:57am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13908 of 13910)

rshow55 - 07:31am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13901 of 13905)

You keep confirming my "criticism" and comments. More here. Parts of your posts are quoted to show that.

[cantabb - (# 13875 }] includes this line, which he may have intended in a dismissive way - but that I felt was important: “Too bad the dots are NOT numbered. That would have helped some to get 'some' picture for the effort.”

Rshow55 (#13786): “Some dots are much better numbered than others - and for such reasons - we share about 100,000 definitions of words that we figured out for ourselves from a well marked context.

For work that is new - things are more precarious. And it takes more care.

First, your response has little to with my comment: just calling a spade a spade.

Second, a whole lot of people are “connecting the dots” on a whole lot of issues, big and small, every day. Nothing new. Productive efforts are logical, organized and methodical – NOT the case here.

IF you think the "work" you're doing is "new," you ought to get out more often.

To me, and I'm not alone in this - it seems a miracle - it is surely a mystery - that people "figure out language and culture for themselves - from clues, and the connections of context" - but we know we do - this is common and crucial to our humanity.

Nothing new, is it ?

How can people be so smart? (animals in lesser ways, too.) How, given that people are so smart - can they also be so incredibly ugly and stupid? - These questions, together, constitute Plato's Problem - and I've been working to make useful headway on that problem - with enormous help from others. I believe that I have, too.

Delusional, to say the least. What exactly is it that you are working on ?

There is nothing I can possibly post on this board that won't be subject to criticism - and it is easy to set up standards by which criticism is just. From many different perspectives.

We ALL face that. Didn’t you see the reaction to my FIRST post here, and since ?

Still, I believe that some very important things can converge, and are converging. Convergences that are desireable.

Things about "what it means to be a human being" - and an animal - and a social animal - that I feel are both practically and aesthetically and emotionally important. No logical progression in your logic here. Is that how you ‘connect the dots’ ?

Cantabb thinks these postings are unworthy of mention on this board. They look like output to me. I'm working to summarize - and trying to satisfy some of Cantabb's concerns as I do so. It is hard to do - when you are as limited as I am - and hard to do under fire. Especially under fire from someone like cantabb , who I suspect is an able editor.

Cliches and inanities are NOT “output.” What’s there to summarize ? BTW, a summary would be a gist of things – NOT another cycle of the same and more of it !

Meanwhile, here are those postings: 1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792 1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793

Rehashing the confusion over and over again is MORE confusion. A wasteful exercise.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense