New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 07:17pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9879 of 9883)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/28/01 5:48pm ):

"...Could I be wrong? Sure. But that's something that should be checked..."

Nobody cares if you are wrong, Robert. I'm sure that we have better uses for resources than checking to see if you are wrong.

"...Which means, for issues where disagreements occur, checked on an umpired basis that has high credibility from many points of view..."

Huh? How-the-hell does checking whether or not you are wrong mean that? This is a perfect example of the misleading, unbased, tangential, ummm...stuff you write, Robert, the "stuff" that I'm complaining about.

"...I'm not asking any body to "believe" me on technical things. The issues involved can all be checked..."

There's no doubt in my mind that the technical things are checked, Robert. You just can't stand it that you are not included in the process. That's what test programs are for...testing provides the opportunity for checking. I'm guessing that anybody who believed you on technical things would be in trouble.

Now, what were the issues involved?

:-)

Thanks for providing the timely exmples to verify my complaint, Robert.

gisterme - 07:52pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9880 of 9883)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/28/01 5:48pm ):

"...Could I be wrong? Sure. But that's something that should be checked..."

Nobody cares if you are wrong, Robert. I'm sure that we have better uses for resources than checking to see if you are wrong.

"...Which means, for issues where disagreements occur, checked on an umpired basis that has high credibility from many points of view..."

Huh? How-the-hell does checking whether or not you are wrong mean that? This is a perfect example of the misleading, unbased, tangential, ummm...stuff you write, Robert, the "stuff" that I'm complaining about.

"...I'm not asking any body to "believe" me on technical things. The issues involved can all be checked..."

And what were the issues involved, Robert? There's no doubt in my mind that the technical things are checked, Robert. You just can't stand it that you are not included in the process. That's what test programs are for...checking. I'm guessing that anybody who believed you on technical things would be in trouble.

Thanks for the timely examples of the kinds of things you write that I'm complaining about. They're perfect examples.

gisterme - 07:56pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9881 of 9883)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/28/01 5:43pm ):

"I'm doing what I think is right for the United States of America, I'm using my own name, which has been in the Madision telephone book for years.

Glad to hear that from you, Robert.

"...The government can find out a lot about me, and has known a lot about me for a long time..."

Since the day we were born, Robert. The government knows a lot about anybody who has a social security number. So what?

"...The government has had permission to copy some of my email accounts, permission delivered to a Federal employee who knows me well, more than a year ago. I have a good deal of reason to think that permission has been used..."

So? You gave permission didn't you? And, why were you offering permission to the government to copy your email accounts when all you do is bad-mouth them the rest of the time?

"...Anyone who cares much, who wants to check my motives, can do so - - I've left a paper trail, collaborating things I've said on this thread, for many, many years..."

You make your motives clear without need for a background search, Robert. Wouldn't expect to find anything but "more of the same".

"...Nobody is paying me to do this, and, except for some very old assurances from Bill Casey, that I can't prove, nobody has made me any promises to do so, on any conditions at all..."

I'm very glad to hear you say that too, Robert. By the way, how do you eat? Are you independently wealthy?

"...I think you, and people like you, are misleading the United States of America, and if you have questions about my motives, perhaps that's understandable. I have questions about yours, as well..."

Ditto, Robert except for the part about motives. Both of our motives are apparent in our writings. You can have all the questions you want, Robert, but with me, what you see is what you get.

"...My identity is open, and easy to check.

What about yours?..."

Mine is too. Don't be upset that you're not on the checklist, Robert. (continued)

gisterme - 07:58pm Sep 28, 2001 EST (#9882 of 9883)

gisterme 9/28/01 7:56pm (continued):

"...As for my loyalty to the United States - - I've asked that some things be checked, and if these things could stand the light of day, I think they would have been some time ago...."

What does "asking that some things be checked" have to do with your loyalty to the United States, Robert? That's certainly no proclomation of loyalty to the United States, is it? Nope.

And what things were you talking about checking, Robert? That same old raft of Cold War stuff that you always throw out? That war is over, Robert. The nations of the world are re-aligning their alliance right before our eyes. We're embarking on the most difficult war in American history...and you're still worried about that Cold War crap?

Anybody interested should go up on this thread to around #2500 and start reading. We go over it and over it and over it and...

For the most part, Robert, I don't think either you or Almarst come off very well in those repetitious iterations. Almarst is revealed as a one-issue player that doesn't represent the "Russians" well at all, perhaps even on that one issue. You come off like a person in denial...spouting things like "Impossible", "can't work", "requires miracles"...mixed in with your complexity-multiplying double-speak nonsense. Let my pevious post be my example to all what I mean by that gisterme 9/28/01 7:17pm .

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense