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.

gisterme - 04:59pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5353 of 5358)

rshow55 10/28/02 7:28am

"...Gisterme goes on to argue that I may have an "astounding ignorance about real engineering development projects or real development projects of any kind."..."

What I said was...

gisterme 10/28/02 12:51am

"...I suppose your nonsensical question falls under the "failure to seek the truth" part of the Showalter/lchic world conquest method. Either that or you reveal an astounding ignorance about real engineering development projects or real development projects of any kind.

Which is it, Robert?..."

That's far less and argument than a simple question, Robert. A question I notice that you fail to answer.

"...Let's talk "missile defense" - as it has been discussed on this board. I'm writing out ... rshow55 4/30/02 9:09am again below, because we've been dealing with some key issues over and over.

In that post you ask things like "Can it see the target?", "Can it hit the target?" and "Can it hurt the target?"... The best answer I can give to those "key" questions, as you call them, is FIVE OUT OF SEVEN SUCCESSES to date in the missile defense test program.

You're the one who keeps coming back to that...you can't quite seem to face the facts.

"...Because gisterme's responses are so often enronation - - it makes sense to review what I have said, and can know, about who (s)he is..."

I tried to look that word "enronation" up in the dictionary. Couldn't find it. Is that another of your fabrications, Robert? I can think of others that might work...if we can substitute "enronation" for embezzlement, then perhaps we could substitute "stalination" for murder or perhaps "clintinoation" for frogs who get stung by scorpions. Perhaps "showalteration" could be substituted for fabrication. Hmmm, the possibilities seem endless.

gisterme - 05:05pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5354 of 5358)

lchic 10/28/02 2:04am

"...So why doesn't everyone in the world think like .... say Gisterme...(?)"

Because there is always a tiny minory who would be king.

I'm content that all but a tiny minority think more like me than like you, lchic.

gisterme - 05:22pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5355 of 5358)

rshow55 10/28/02 7:29am

"...Gisterme points out that I don't and can't know who (s)he is - and can only make inferences based on responses..."

How hard is it to infer that I'm not Condolizza Rice and not a female when I TELL YOU SO, Robert?

You just presume that everybody who doesn't agree with your world view must be somebody important. That makes you feel important, right, Robert? Does it help justify your means of support? If it does, you're supported by a bunch of suckers.

"...I know gisterme is very sensitive when I make comments about Stanford deans - but I can't be sure who (s)he is without checking - checking that I can't do - though some others could..."

Stanford is a fine university Robert; but I've never been there. Don't know where this "sensitivity to comments about Stanford deans" stuff is coming from.

Your "some others could" part of the comment seems a little baffeling. Are you suggesting that someone at the New York Times should violate their employer's security policies just so you might find out my name? You'd just be dissapointed if they did. If someone at the NYT did do that for you, would that act fall under the definition of enronation ?

mazza9 - 05:48pm Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5356 of 5358)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Gisterme:

Good job. It only took persistence and 1100 odd posts for you to receive a partial admission from Robert. Who knows, maybe by Christmas 2009 and 475,000 additional, inane verbage he might deign to admit more.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense