"Retic Postings and SPAM"
Wen
There have been multiple accusations that the postings of H.E. Retic
are SPAM. The writer's postings are carefully constructed so as remain
within the commonly accepted rules concerning SPAM, to wit:
1. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made to more
than eight Newsgroups. The writer has limited his postings to seven
Newsgroups.
2. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made more
frequently than every 14 days. The writer's posting are separated by a
longer time span.
3. Postings shall be reasonably close to the topic to which the
Newsgroups is dedicated. My postings are closer to being on topic for each
Newsgroup than are most of the postings within that group.
4. The postings shall not be used for commercial purposes. They are
not.
5. There shall be no alteration of the header material of the
postings. While the postings are made under many different E-mail names,
however my ISP provides for multiple user names and permits them to be
altered at will.
None of the writer's actions constitute SPAM as it is currently
defined. The accusations that the writer is a SPAMMER can reasonably
considered to be the slanderous behavior of sick minds. My postings are to
de facto public newsgroups which, as such, cannot limit their postings to
material that agrees with the majority viewpoint and still retain their
legitimacy. That type of censorship is legitimate only when done by
moderated groups. To avoid this censorship, the writer has made use of his
ISP's useful capability of allowing E-mail name changes. (It has been
alleged that such changes are the characteristic of a "crank". They are not,
they are the response of any reasonable individual whose ideas are being
suppressed.)
The writer concludes that the strident protest against the writer's
postings can only result from fear, otherwise why wouldn't they just be
ignored if the content were thought not to be valid. After all, there are
many more foolish postings than mine made to these Newsgroups without
evoking complaint. The only reason for the complaints would seem to be that
the complainer is not upset by the fact the posted material is "wrong", he
is upset by the idea that they challenge what he has been taught and he may
be forced to "go back to the drawing board" and relearn his physics.
Even more sinister is the possibility that the complainers know that
their science is defective and wish to shield it from question from students
of the subject. Such questions make it much more difficult to indoctrinate
students with the "one true faith" which must not be questioned. It should
be noted that the complainers have not attempted to answer any of the basic
questions which have been raised, instead they have resorted to
vilification.
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Paul Mays
"Wen" <w...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:159e2$486e2d96$4fa123e$26...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> "Retic Postings and SPAM"
>
> There have been multiple accusations that the postings of H.E. Retic
> are SPAM. The writer's postings are carefully constructed so as remain
> within the commonly accepted rules concerning SPAM, to wit:
>
> 1. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made to
more
> than eight Newsgroups. The writer has limited his postings to seven
> Newsgroups.
Please pick another 7 as those picked think you a KooK...
>
> 2. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made more
> frequently than every 14 days. The writer's posting are separated by a
> longer time span.
About 12 years between would be about right
>
> 3. Postings shall be reasonably close to the topic to which the
> Newsgroups is dedicated. My postings are closer to being on topic for each
> Newsgroup than are most of the postings within that group.
Closer ... Ceti Reticuli is closer
>
> 4. The postings shall not be used for commercial purposes. They are
> not.
thats true.... nobody buys it
>
> 5. There shall be no alteration of the header material of the
> postings. While the postings are made under many different E-mail names,
> however my ISP provides for multiple user names and permits them to be
> altered at will.
You do understand that by doing so you cause those you wish
to read your stuff to ignore it and not read it at all... guess not...
>
> None of the writer's actions constitute SPAM as it is currently
> defined. The accusations that the writer is a SPAMMER can reasonably
> considered to be the slanderous behavior of sick minds. My postings are to
> de facto public newsgroups which, as such, cannot limit their postings to
> material that agrees with the majority viewpoint and still retain their
> legitimacy. That type of censorship is legitimate only when done by
> moderated groups. To avoid this censorship, the writer has made use of his
> ISP's useful capability of allowing E-mail name changes. (It has been
> alleged that such changes are the characteristic of a "crank". They are
not,
> they are the response of any reasonable individual whose ideas are being
> suppressed.)
No, but the actions of the writer to circumvent Blocks by readers
causes the writer to be considered an idiot and will not get your post read.
>
> The writer concludes that the strident protest against the writer's
> postings can only result from fear, otherwise why wouldn't they just be
> ignored if the content were thought not to be valid. After all, there are
> many more foolish postings than mine made to these Newsgroups without
> evoking complaint. The only reason for the complaints would seem to be
that
> the complainer is not upset by the fact the posted material is "wrong", he
> is upset by the idea that they challenge what he has been taught and he
may
> be forced to "go back to the drawing board" and relearn his physics.
>
> Even more sinister is the possibility that the complainers know that
> their science is defective and wish to shield it from question from
students
> of the subject. Such questions make it much more difficult to indoctrinate
> students with the "one true faith" which must not be questioned. It should
> be noted that the complainers have not attempted to answer any of the
basic
> questions which have been raised, instead they have resorted to
> vilification.
Not at all.. the actions of the writer cause those in the forums to consider
the writer a self-absorbed idiot... your actions speak louder than your
posts..
Its self rebutting....