New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (16319 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:13am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16320 of 16345)
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.

On October 26, I wrote a fairly short email to the "top dog" at the New York Times - and some interesting things have happened since.

That e-mail referred to this posting of October 26, which was written with the correspondence to the top man in mind:

15664 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DCtwbAYpUZk.914733@.f28e622/17379

That piece quotes Cantabb , who said

"And, had you written THAT "short" "well-crafted" letter to him and called him, as you had been planning to do, you would have returned from NYC by now, after a visit to CIA, FBI, Rummy, GW, Rice and the whole gang-- and their stand-ins."

It hasn't been that easy - as I knew it wouldn't be, couldn't be, and shouldn't have been.

Some interesting things have happened since, and I've been pleased with some of them.

There's been some effort to answer questions I posed, that necessarily imply some reciprocal questions. In fact, there's been a sophisticated response to those questions that is constructive as for as it goes, and appreciated. Here are the questions:

Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. What would he need to be able to leave this board and function?

and a related question:

Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. Under what circumstances is he crippled in the ways that matter for function?

I have a "solution" that "might" work perfectly well for me - but it is unstable - not really usable as it stands - and the issues involved cannot be resolved well, from any point of view I can think of that a New York Times reader or organizational stakeholder would reasonably take - without some more communication.

The sophisticated response I got to my request was from a ranking person at The New York Times - and I'll be working to communicate with him again today. He hasn't returned a phone call - and there has been comment about it on this board.

Lchic and I are making progress on some of our own problems - and on some problems that desperately concerned Eisenhower - problems of negotiating stable peace agreements. It isn't a lot harder than teaching kids how to tie their shoes - but it takes a while.

Things are being demonstrated here that every professional diplomat should know. Things they don't know now.

I wish I could move faster - but I'm building a record - and it is a record that many at the New York Times should be glad and proud to see built.

cantabb - 08:14am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16321 of 16345)

It's 3:13 PM in the veld. Do you know where your 'parrot' is ?

Waiting for the cows to come home ? And chicken to come home to roost ?

[Some phrases for the barnyard denizens !]

rshow55 - 08:19am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16322 of 16345)
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.

Assuming that post was for me . . I've been waiting to see "the lay of the land" - and resting enough so that I can keep my head, and ask others to keep theirs.

And move slowly and carefully enough that a stable win-win solution happens.

Or, failing that, moving carefully enough so that I can have results Eisenhower would approve of as things go on.

bluestar23 - 08:32am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16323 of 16345)

"but I'm building a record -"

You are dooing NOTHING, Showalter....nothing but meaningless typing at your keyboard....

bluestar23 - 08:42am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16324 of 16345)

"...I are making progress on some of our own problems.."

the usual generalities...what EXACTLY do you MEAN..????

bluestar23 - 08:45am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16325 of 16345)

"What would he need to be able to leave this board...?"

Just STOP TYPING..!!!

More Messages Recent Messages (20 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense