New York Times Readers Opinions
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 (8120 previous messages)

rshow55 - 01:39pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8121 of 8133) Delete Message
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.

If some leaders of nation states - especially those on the UN Security Council - asked to have some key things about this thread checked, -there is a large enough corpus - with enough statistically independent but linked crosschecks - that a great deal could be clarified.

One issue that matters is this. On the basis of consistency checks - it is unlikely that gisterme's work isn't closely watched by high ranking officers at the White House - and the most reasonable assumption - if people actually look for themselves - is that gisterme is the President of the United States - assisted by Condoleezza Rice - or a writer dealing with extensive notes from them.

On checking: a detective could do a lot for $50,000 - small change considering the stakes. Wars are expensive - morally, and financially, too. Things should be checked.

rshow55 - 01:40pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8122 of 8133) Delete Message
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.

gisterme - - I think you've committed so many frauds, so often, that you think you're actually entitled to do so.

You're messing up the United States of America - and for all you industry - I think you have a lot of reason to be ashamed of yourself.

gisterme - 01:49pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8123 of 8133)

lchic - 12:06pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8112...)

Colin Powell:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell accused Saddam Hussein of having clear links with the al-Qaeda network, in an address to the World Economic Forum here.

"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups including al-Qaeda to pass a weapon, share technology or use these weapons again," he said.

"...How clear was clear?"

Seems pretty clear to me, lchic. I'm glad that some folks inside the Bush administration seem to have some common sense too.

wrcooper - 01:54pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8124 of 8133)

Wow. Sad, sad.

Well, I took rshow55 off my "Ignore List" long enough to read these last two posts. Hey, I'm human. I couldn't resist. I'm weak.

Anyway, it seems that his psychological state is none improved.

Sorry, Bob. I'm not George Johnson. You've talked yourself into a muddle, I'm afraid. It must be delusions of grandeur, a need to feel you're more significant in the world than you are, to suspect that the President or any of his cabinet appointees (or even their flunkies), would bother tuning inbto your hypergraphic maunderings and rants.

I hate to break it to you, old buddy, but you're a nobody. Just like the rest of us who spend way too much of our precious time in these forums, I dare say (No offense, people. I'm just as guilty as you are). At least we're nobodies as far as they're concerned. (But my wife loves me and thinks I'm important. So does my family. That must count for something!? :(

I think I'm going to find another forum to discuss missile defense. This has gotten way too weird for my tastes.

Get help, Bob!

Arrivaderci.

gisterme - 02:07pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8125 of 8133)

rshow55 - 01:40pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8122...)

"gisterme - - I think you've committed so many frauds, so often, that you think you're actually entitled to do so..."

Oh? What frauds are those, Robert? 'Care to point one out??? Do you call holding your feet to the fire fraud? I still don't think you have a clue about what you mean when you say "oscillatory solution". How's that?

"...You're messing up the United States of America - ..."

Give me a break Robert. I'm just one little citizen like you. If you think I've rained on your parade, well that's one thing. Don't accuse me of messing up the United States of America just because I question your nonsense.

"...and for all you industry - I think you have a lot of reason to be ashamed of yourself."

Wrong again. I'm not perfect but I have no cause for shame. I may be opinionated and unafraid to say what I think or know; but I'm truthful. There's nothing shameful in that. How about you, Robert? Do you have any reason to be ashamed of yourself? Shall we check the record of this thread...? Let's don't. You already seem to be having a bad day.

More Messages Recent Messages (8 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us