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 - 11:01am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13909 of 13915)

rshow55 - 09:05am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13902 of 13905)

For example, quite a lot of this thread is quite specifically focused on missile defense - and a lot more isn't.

Is that cheating - is that unfair ?

You can argue that it is - and cantabb is doing so.

Non sequiturs.

You raised “cheating” and “unfair” yourself: I did NOT.

The idea of switching is old, but of interest all the same - and I feel it is a very important idea here - because I'm interested in workable convergences - as others are, too.

More of the same. Such a scattered approach rarely leads to "workable convergences" -- whatever you mean by that.

A key notion of switching is set out in one of the most cherished passages in the Old Testament - Ecclesiastes 3: 1-13 - which most secular types may recognize more easily from Turn, Turn, Turn by The Byrds http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?Turn_Turn_Turn.html To every thing . . . . There is a season . . . And a time to every purpose under heaven Ecclesiastes 3: 1-13 is attributed to David - who, with his many wives and many responsibilities, had to do a lot of switching. -Lesser people, from birth, have to do a lot of switching as well. Some sortings and some switchings work MUCH better than others. To be right for one purpose is necessarily to be wrong for some other purposes.

Totally irrelevant.

Am I cheating - being unfair on this thread?

Am I doing things at wrong times - or at wrong places?

It seems clear that cantabb thinks so - and, on balance, I disagree.

One could argue, from other perspectives - that cantabb is being unfair and cheating - and argue against that proposition, too. I think a lot of cantabb's postings belong here - and they've stimulated me. Still, I think the argument might be interesting, both ways. . .

I appreciate the search facility on this thread - and it seems to me that a search of the keywords fairness or cheating brings up a lot of interesting material - directly connected to some disagreements I have with cantabb and some other people.

I'm trying to get convergence - to a degree that hasn't been done before - about what fairness is and what cheating is when you have to deal with "the dirty details." http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm

You are arguing with yourself on a matter you raised yourself and rambled on it. Wasteful. Incoherent.

jorian319 - 11:06am Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13910 of 13915)

It's a WIN-WIN situation, cantabb. (Wasteful, Incoherent, Nonsensical)

robkettenburg03 - 12:15pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13911 of 13915)

jorian319 wouldn't know the truth if it walked right up to her and punched her in the nose!

robkettenburg03 - 12:15pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13912 of 13915)

WAR CASUALTY LIST (UPDATED September 23rd, 2003) - http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=20513&lang=en

Famous Quotes from our Fearless Leader Geroge W. Bush, PART II - http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

My Home Page - http://geocities.com/robkettenburg2002

jorian319 - 12:21pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13913 of 13915)

Ah... right on cue - The posterboy of Wasteful, Incoherent and Nonsensical!

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense