Missile Defense

READ IT AND WEEP, IDIOTBOY!

jorian319 - 01:15pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15174 of 15177)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Message showed up on the wrong thread! SORRY!

(Oh, what am I apologizing for? That post is almost as on-topic as anything else showing up here lately...)

rshow55 - 01:17pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15175 of 15177)
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.

Jorian319 - some things do deteriorate (or get better) slowly.

And some things solidify. For instance - our interaction has elements of cooperation - and some of competition.

This is a "game that is not a game" - and I've been spending a little time wondering how to "win my game" without cooperation from the NYT team, or gisterme.

Looks possible to me - but messier, in spots, than things would be with cooperation.

Just like a standoff with the NK's looks messier - to me - than a competent negotiation that has a chance of closing.

( That is, a negotiation that actually meets the needs of the people involved - and doesn't ask anybody to do anything they can't do - and have to fight about. )

cantabb - 01:20pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15176 of 15177)

rshow55 - 12:58pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15172 of 15172)

Cantabb: Your situation, current and past, and your obligations are ALL YOURS, and yours alone – absolutely nothing to do with this Forum

These comments occur to me: ........... script of Casablanca http://6nescripts.free.fr/Casablanca.pdf p. 92

NOT responsive. Doesn't even make sense. Your constant references to Casablanca are just pathetic, if anything at all.

The idea that the NYT and I don't exist within a system of reciprocal obligations is strange by now.

YOU discuss that with Sulzberger (NYT) ! Whatever the "mutual obligation" ! NOT really relevant here. This is a public forum -- NOT a place for grievances against the US Intelligence agencies.

Also ask Sulzberger (NYT) IF a discussion of your "mutual obligations" to each other is of ANY business here on this Forum !

Since you still have NOT contradicted my assumptions about your activities on the Forum and the things you claim to have accomplished, my assumptions [ = "Assumptions re rshow55/lchic"] seem closer to THE "truth" that lchic refers to in her tag-line !

rshow55 - 01:30pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15177 of 15177)
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.

Cantabb , re http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.BHjhb9cnOTm.2832989@.f28e622/16888 , the Sulzberger point is interesting. Though I wonder how much authority you have to raise it.

Once, a long while ago - I called in to the NYT - got a secretary - and she was kind enough to give me Sulzberger's email adress.

I thought a while about sending to it - and decided, then, that I couldn't. For reasons that made sense then - but don't apply now.

That was a long time ago - and I didn't hang onto the address.

Now, though I'd be afraid - Sulzberger has a lot of rank - I'd be honored to contact him. Or someone with a name who represented him - knowing how valuable Sulzberger's time is.

But the grammer of the situation would be a good deal easier if someone at the NYT, with a name, would call me. Or call someone (for instance, at the UW ) who knew me, and who'd call me.

I think things could work out in ways that the average reader of The New York Times would find comfortable - and consistent with the national interest.

I would be honored to have things work out in a way that gave the NYT satisfaction - if they were compatible with my reasonable function.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense