I will add you should respect people’s right for anonymity if provided by the forum OR post elsewhere.

There are several posters out there (not just in this forum), who are patently paranoid about who they are “discussing” things with. To them, the words are modulated by reputations of those writing them. Well, sorry to those posters. If they can’t derive meaning from the words, but need reputations for validation of those words, those words are simply incomplete. We’ll give you some more. Just ask.

Speculations about revealed identity are usually laughable. As if it matters.

You can call me Norm. Or maybe you can’t.

No, you’re hallucinating because one of your arguments amounts to Stephen Hadley, Dan Shields, and other Bush II Administration officials working for China.

“I could get an intelligent, respectful discussion on this forum”

This from the poster who, after failing to produce any actual evidence to support his position and being shown multiple primary and secondary sources demonstrating that his position is patently wrong, dismisses the entire argument with a juvenile “whatever”.

(This from the same poster who relied on the same juvenile “whatever” routine when his predictions on the SpaceX/USAF case turned out to be grossly wrong.)

This from the poster who, instead of following, reading, and comprehending the other posters’ links and arguing the evidence, makes lame attempts to discredit those sources by claiming that they’re classified when they’re not. Or that an objective article in a leading US newspaper quoting White House officials is not a valid source. Or that the other poster relied solely on said article, when he did not.

This from the poster who claims that the other poster is out of touch with reality, and then gets offended when told that he’s hallucinating in return.

This from a poster who should have just read the evidence and admitted he was wrong three posts ago. Or just left the discussion if he wasn’t big enough to do that.

If you want respect, then show respect. If you can’t, then don’t post.

“especially from someone who doesn’t have the balls to use his (or her) real name”

Several points:

1) It’s the comments area of an internet blog, not a mortgage deal, for crissakes. We’re allowed and encouraged here to use pseudonyms. And for all we know, “Michael Listner (Listener?)” is a pseudonym.

2) You’re the poster lamely relying on anonymous others who supposedly share your “opinion” to support your position, not me. If you’re so worried about anonymity, then reference your sources.

3) It doesn’t matter what our identities are, whether one of the posters is Norm Augustine and the other is a janitor at Lockheed Martin. One argument clearly has the weight of evidence behind it, and the other is totally lacking in evidence.

4) If you’ve run out of logic and evidence and have to resort on ad hominem attacks to continue the argument, then either admit that your position was wrong or just stop posting. Don’t waste my or your time.

“Even though you don’t have the guts to use your real name, I have a strong suspicion who you are. If I am right, which I probably am”

As usual, you’re wrong. The only other forum I’ve frequented in this area (and stopped months ago) is nasaspaceflight.com, where I’ve gone by the same moniker. And I’ve never run across a Michael Listner there.

“I’ve shut you down on many occasions in public forums on space policy discussions so it’s probably a good idea to keep your face hidden lest you suffer further embarrassment.”

Wow, there is some serious paranoia on display in that post.

Dude, it’s only the comments area on a blog. It’s not a test of your manhood. It’s okay to be wrong. Grow up, get some perspective, do your research before posting next time, and/or see a psychiatrist for that paranoid personality disorder.

Yikes…

I must be hallucinating to think I could get an intelligent, respectful discussion on this forum, especially from someone who doesn’t have the balls to use his (or her) real name. More evidence that I need to stop wasting my time here and spending more time writing space policy articles.

It’s still not a classified document. Just because a document is on Wikileaks doesn’t mean that said document ever had distribution and handling restrictions.

“I would also suggest anyone who uses the New York Times as a source”

I would suggest that anyone who tries to argue that I’m relying on the Times when I’ve also provided diplomatic cables from Wikileaks, references from the Defense Technical Information Center, and references from a Space Review article is being disingenuous. Or is seriously lack in their reading comprehension.

“believes everything China says is out of touch with reality.”

So Stephen Hadley worked for the PRC? And senior Bush Administration officials worked for the PRC? And diplomat Dan Shields worked for the PRC?

That’s some weird reality. Where do you get your hallucinogens?

“Whatever.”

Ah… another cogent rebuttal backed by irrefutable evidence.

I beg to differ.

“Anyone who shares that opinion is out of touch with reality:”

Whatever.

It’s not a classified document.

“However, the unintended destructiveness of the test has no bearing on whether or not this test was meant to demonstrate an active ASAT capability and in part send a message, i.e. a shot across the bow to see how the international community would respond.”

It’s more than the debris. Leadership didn’t know what date the test was going to take or even that this specific test was planned. They couldn’t intend to send a message via an action they didn’t know about.

“I’m not the only who has this opinion.”

Anyone who shares that opinion is out of touch with reality:

“Bush administration officials said that… they were uncertain whether China’s top leaders, including President Hu Jintao, were fully aware of the test”

“protests filed by the United States, Japan, Canada and Australia, among others, were met with silence — and quizzical looks from officials in The Chinese Foreign Ministry, who seemed to be caught unaware”

“The American officials presume that Mr. Hu was generally aware of the missile testing program, but speculate that he may not have known the timing of the test.”

“In an interview late Friday, Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush’s national security adviser, raised the possibility that China’s leaders might not have fully known what their military was doing.”

“‘It’s the kind of silence that makes you wonder what’s happening inside the country,’ said another senior American official who has been monitoring the case. ‘I’m sure the Chinese leadership knew there were tests under way, in a general sort of way. But they don’t seem to have been prepared for a success, and they clearly had not thought about what they would say to the world.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/world/asia/22missile.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=world