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.

commondata - 09:14am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8089 of 8102)

What would you say his motivation is, lchic? I read most of them as distinct personalities.

rshow55 - 09:24am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8090 of 8102)
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 Johnson characters are intended to be distinct personalities - personas.

The "game" of plausible denial has uses - but the issues involved are heavy - and values are only worth as much as they are. There should be an exception made about gisterme - - given the stakes now.

The NYT may disagree - but it seems to me that the stakes are so high now that some exceptions are fully justified - for good - and good enough - reasons.

lchic - 09:36am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8091 of 8102)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

'his motivation' (Johnson) - Commondata

• 1) to maximise his pay cheque
• 2) to maximise his pay cheque
• 3) to maximise his pay cheque

commondata - 09:37am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8092 of 8102)

Tap "wrcooper" into a search of this thread. Look back through his last 30 or 40 posts. Everything he has written is consistent with somebody who is interested in missile defense, who opposes it (note opposes it) and who has consistently and repeatedly denied being either George Johnson, the president or anybody else with 'status'. I think we have no choice but to take him at his word. I know that to do that is to diminish the value of your work on this thread in your own eyes but I don't believe that you have any other rational choice. You're stuck in a local minima and need a good shake.

rshow55 - 09:47am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8093 of 8102)
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.

People who simply "take posters at their word" - without checking against facts, and for consistency - are being foolish. And in the cases involved here - being murderously foolish.

The need to check things - against external facts - is vital - and showing that has been a major purpose of this thread.

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that gisterme is the President of the United States simply because he denies it. I have other reasons to doubt that he is - but when you crosscheck consistency - the idea that gisterme is the President has been reasonable for a long time - and much that gisterme has posted since the point has been discussed explicitly reinforces the presumption.

Leaders of some nations states should ask for some checking. Too much is at stake not to, it seems to me.

commondata - 09:58am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8094 of 8102)

You'd be foolish to take posters at their word if it mattered. But there's another way of looking at it: it doesn't matter. In fact, if Gisterme were the president, and wrcooper were George Johnson, it would matter to them that you were rational, and you can't do that by making unsubstatiated claims about their identity. Catch-22. Would you have reason to doubt that I wasn't a talking horse just because I denied it, or is it simply that that possibility is overwhelmingly unlikely?

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense