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.

rshow55 - 06:39am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14507 of 14512)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

The "ploy" might not be a bit pathetic if a staff got involved. That's not impossible to imagine. This thread is voluminous - but so is pretrial discovery. From which a lot of things condense.

This thread has been "noticed"

12863 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939297@.f28e622/14539

The question of "who is gisterme " is getting more interesting - and more and more people with power and independence are taking positions where it may be answered.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm

There is a question closely connected to " what did he know - and when did he know it?"

It is "what did he say - and when did he say it? "

- - - - We could use something very practical - a secular redemption - a sorting out of this mess.

SECULAR REDEMPTION http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345

I'm dreaming of redemption, . . where all concerned can know the same stories, . . and live with that, and look back and go on comfortably, . . not unreasonably proud, or unreasonably ashamed, . . . in ways that work in private and in public.

The best thing for the country - and for almost everybody involved, in my opinion - would be for postings since 1445 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939297@.f28e622/16164 , or perhaps earlier, to be deleted - and people to find ways to closure that the people involved could live with honestly .

That would require that I have some traceable closures involving specific, named people at the New York Times. Not perhaps for wide public use. But for the usages the function anyone living in society reasonably requires.

And perhaps this board should be shut down. In the alternative - I'll fight - it will be my duty to do so - and I'll have to. I think the following posting is especially apt.

lchic - 08:53am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14115 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939297@.f28e622/15821 ~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Stench in the Trench - easy to fall into, hard to get out of

the futility of war

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/trenchlife.htm

rshow55 - 06:42am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14508 of 14512)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Errata - 1445 above should have been 14457 - as in

The best thing for the country - and for almost everybody involved, in my opinion - would be for postings since 14457 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JWgubmOOL1w.939297@.f28e622/16164 , or perhaps earlier, to be deleted - and people to find ways to closure that the people involved could live with honestly .

rshow55 - 07:07am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14509 of 14512)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

A lot has gone on since this was filed and accepted - and much of it is to the credit of the Times. http://www.mrshowalter.net/CommendationTo_Kolata_EichwaldandNYT.htm

Not all. And the meaning of things change with changes in context that can come with time. http://www.mrshowalter.net/CommendationTo_Kolata_EichwaldandNYT.htm links to a great deal. Can all of that great deal - or enough to matter - be kept secret if it comes to matter to an organized group outside the TIMES?

An article this Sunday casts an interesting light on issues connected to this.

Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order By ADAM LIPTAK http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/weekinreview/05LIPT.html

If they subpoenaed Mr. Novak, for instance, a court would very likely order him to testify.

Which is not to say he would comply. Reporters ordered to reveal their sources almost never do, on the theory that they and their colleagues would have little chance of persuading other sources to trust them if they did. They generally prefer to be held in contempt of court. Reporters have spent time in jail and publishers have paid substantial fines as a consequence.

What if the issue is an unwillingness of reporters to reveal who they are? And a willingness of reporters to use the implicit presumption of their connections - without taking responsibility for them - to obscure and defame?

The exercise of irresponsible power that I've been subjected to is significant - of long standing - and much that has happened is not to the credit of the Times. Though some is.

Those issues are involved here - and contexts are serious. The NYT isn't automatically in the right about this. The issues connected to the Jayson Blair case are small by comparison.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense