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 - 05:48pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13919 of 13923)

rshow55 - 04:21pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13918 of 13919)

You keep trying to rationalize the way you have used this thread.

An interesting article. Play Fair: Your Life May Depend on It By NICHOLAS WADE: ....... If my survival was in your hands - what would happen?

NO relevance here.

Are you implying that I (or others) are NOT playing fair ? Are YOU playing fair ?

Innuendoes !

Among the things YOU find "interesting," it is the question of what IS relevant here and in what particular way.

Cantabb , I think it is clear that if the monitors wanted to construe the pupose of this thread exactly according to the heading - or any of the headings this thread has carried since its beginning in May 2000 ( those headings are here: about 80% of the 25000 posts that have gone onto this thread would have been barred.

No body knows why THIS thread is NOT moderated by NYT to conform to its own Forum header.

Don't you think that it's the same "80% of the 25,000 posts" that would have otherwise been "barred" that turned this forum into what it has become: a kitchen sink ? And, the same has also severely compromised whatever purpose NYT may have had in creating this thread ? What kind of understanding, do you think, this type of digressive generalities can possibly promote ?

Why do YOU think NYT now has 8 different forums under "Science"? Also, various sub-groups under other rubrics?

I think the monitors did well to permit what they permitted.

ONLY IF they had wanted to help turn it into a kitchen sink, where anything and everythuing can be dumped for whatever personal reasons -- including conspiracy theories, poster identities, motives, and armchair psychoanalysis. All in a pretty inane fashion.

The question is what fits - according to what assumptions - with what weights - for what purposes. Beautiful by one set of standards can be - will be - ugly from another. People don't have to fight about those disagreements.

What rational assumptions are you making here ? The forum's purpose seems clear to me; what other purpose do you have in mind, IF NOT the same as stated ?

you're right that there is a clear, explicit statement. But I find it impossible believe that that statement is "the whole story" about the purpose of this thread - in the eyes of either the participants or the NYT organization - because of the way it has been used - both before and after your 59 postings over the last few weeks.

Get your fact straight: I first posted on Sept 17 (about 8 days ago) -- NOT "over the last few weeks." What followed (59 posts or whatever ) WAS in response to that ONE post and others directed to ME, by the dedicated "regulars," including you. There's a BIG difference from your posts.

NYT's stated purpose does NOT change, just because the way it has been used (before my post) and its extensive digression were ignored by NYT moderators !

What do you think is the "whole story" about the purpose of this thread ? To give you a soap-box for YOUR biographical details and musings, conspiracies and for anything-and-everything you wanted to say ? Nonsense !

I've been trying to do so - sometimes under complex circumstances - and I think that some of the things you find worst about the thread are some of the best things.

The things I find "worst about the thread" REMAIN "worst." Regardless.

YOU may think of them as the "best things" for YOU. And you may think LOT of other things. NOTHING to do with how well they reflect the reality.

Cantabb: Working with the patterns of discourse ( or patterns of closing off discourse) that you advocate so indignantly - how are those key questions - that are vital for workable closure of negotiations ever to be res

cantabb - 05:49pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13920 of 13923)

rshow55 - 04:21pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13918 of 13919)

continued with overlap....

Cantabb: Working with the patterns of discourse ( or patterns of closing off discourse) that you advocate so indignantly - how are those key questions - that are vital for workable closure of negotiations ever to be resolved?

WHAT "patterns of discourse"? Are you talking about a "discourse" on anything specific ?

You haven't told us WHAT specifically do you think you're working on that requires such a level of digression and generalities. And, to achieve what ?

You indignantly classify decent outcomes out of existence, advocating procedures that make closure impossible. Those procedures do give an enormous arbitrary power to whoever has "the red pen" in their hands.

What "decent outcomes" ? What "closure" ? Do you think the confused way THIS forum is rambling on is EVER going to achieve anything -- on MD ? Or on anything else ?

Makes NO sense.

I'm taking some time to exercise.

What ?

9002 - 9012 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ZoSKbuzXI4r.1597990@.f28e622/10529 set out some background of this thread that didn't happen by accident - wasn't ignored by the monitors of these threads - and would be entirely inconsistent with some things you want now

The world according to YOU ? Which "background" of the thread ? Yours ? or NYT's ?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense