Your Usenet posts
Dr H
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}If people want me to respond they have to copy me and I will respond. I am a
}very busy person.
No doubt you are. I thank you for taking the time from your very full
schedule to send not one, but /three/ responses to my e-mail, not to
mention posting it to five newsgroups, as I neglected to do myself.
Just in passing, I would note that, although I am not personally offended,
a number of people would take exception to your posting of private e-mail
without their permission.
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> Dear Dr. Sarfatti:
}>
}> Please excuse the intrusion, but I am hoping you can clear something
}> up for me.
}>
}> As a participant in the sci.skeptic newsgroup as well as a regular
}> reader of the sci.physics newsgroup I cannot help but notice your
}> voluminous postings to those groups, as well as sci.cognitive,
}> alt.paranormal, and several other groups.
}>
}> I also notice that you virtually never engage in any discussion with
}> other posters in those newsgroups. Considering that the /raison d'etre/
}> for Usenet is to provide fora for /discussion/, your position strikes
}> me as somewhat odd.
}
}You sound like a censor.
What an odd interpretation. I am the exact opposite of a censor: I
advocate free and open discussion of all topics in a public forum.
}I am a celebrated thinker in these fields on TV and
}in many books and articles and people, should be honored I give them my
}pearls of wisdom.
The honor is all mine, I am sure.
}I have said I will answer responses sent to me directly and have done so.
Actually, I have not seen where you said that, though doubtless I have
missed a few of your pearls of wisdom, since I am a fairly busy person
myself.
I would note, however, that Usenet convention generally assumes that
if you /post/ to a group, you intend to initiate discussion /in/ that
group, and not exclusively by e-mail. Just a small consideration.
}Therefore I am true to If morons wish to write stupid
}flames I have no time to read them.
Nor should you: I was not suggesting that you involve yourself in
flame wars, simply that you address legitimate discussion about the
issues raised in your posts in the forum in which you post them.
Some would consider failure to do so somewhat rude, though I refrain
from jumping to such a conclusion about one clearly so highly placed
as yourself, in you own esteem if nowhere else, so to speak.
}So my position is not odds the /raison
}d'etre/ for Usenet at all. It is merely convenient for me. It is a simple
}matter for anyone to cc to sarf...@well.com for my response.
Yes, but that deprives others of the benefit of the exchange, unless it
is your habit to publicly post private e-mail, which I suppose that it is.
}So you raise a completely phony bogus concern given the ease of the technology.
In fact my concern is quite genuine.
}Strike the mote from thine own eye.
Indeed: I shall do so immediately upon your removing the beam from
your own. :-)
}> Moreover, it seems to be at direct odds with the
}> sentiment expressed in your .sig "create, communicate, collaborate".
}> Creating you may be, but by avoiding discussion on the issues you
}> present you are certainly neither collaborating nor communicating in
}> any very effective or meaningful way.
}
}I have avoided nothing. Again I am too busy to check the usenets.
Perhaps. However, it would seem that if you are not too busy to /post/
your lengthy dissertations to various and sundry newsgroups, thus
reaping the dubious benefits of wide exposure to a sea of "morons",
you could possibly find the time to /defend/ those dissertations to
those of us struggling to reap the rewards of your mighty intellect.
Surely this is not asking too much from a new age Renaissance man
such as yourself.
}My information is vital to the subjects. I lead. I do not follow.
Indeed, but one might legitimately ask, /where/ is it you attempt
to lead us? Surely some small digression on exactly /how/ your
information is vital is not out of order?
}Would you tell Einstein not to send his messages if he were alive now?
Probably not. Nor have I told you to stop sending yours. I simply
asked why you choose not to actively participate in the newsgroups in which
you pontificate.
}I answer queries when I get them. If you like simply tell people that.
Well, as you have been kind enough to post your response to my e-mail to
hell and gone (if you'll pardon my French), I imagine that some of them
are being so informed at this very moment.
}I will mention this on my future posts since the morons do not seem to be
}able to figure this simple matter out.
Probably a good idea since we are, so few of us, mind-readers.
}From what I have been told by competent people who do look, most of the
}responses to my pearls of wisdom are from ignorant fools.
I confess I am a bit taken aback at this admission that someone of your
obvious intellect would trust second hand accounts when he could so
handily obtain first hand information, given the ease of the technology.
Be that as it may, I submit that the appropriate course to take with
the ignorant is to /educate/ them, rather than deride them out of hand
as fools. True, some of them may /be/ fools, but then there is no
lack of fools among the allegedly well-informed, either.
}> So perhaps you could enlighten me: what is it you feel you are
}> accomplishing by posting huge volumes of material which you seem
}> unwilling to discuss, to newsgroups in which, to put it mildly,
}> you don't seem to be regarded very kindly by most of the regulars?
}
}The "regulars" as you call them do not own the usenet.
If I gave the impression that I thought that, I apologize; I certainly
did not intend to convey anything of the sort. As some who know me from
other newsgroups could attest, I am one of the very last people who would
suggest that newsgroup regulars "owned" the Usenet.
}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
That is a rather harsh judgement of those with whom you disdain discussion,
save under your own very specific terms. If I may ask, on what do you base
it?
}However, even if there is one serious student out their it is worth sending
}out my work.
Please excuse me if this question seems unduly metaphysical, but *why*?
Are there not better ways to contact serious students of whatever it
is you desire to teach, than to cast your pearls before those which you,
in effect, consider swine?
It seems that there must surely be more efficient means by which to
disseminate your vast knowledge and learned insights, and as you are
a very busy man I would think that streamlining the process would be
of some interest to you.
}I shall not be cowed by a ignorant mob of marching morons who are of the
}same mentality of those who burn books and shout down real intelligence and
}learning. I defy them.
Bravo! I applaud your position! Even though I have not perceived these
hoards of metaphorical book-burners in the groups to which you post;
doubtless your insights in this area are more perspicarious than my own.
}I defend the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. I even defend their right
}to be stupid, mean-spirited, arrogantly ignorant etc.
As do I, sir; as do I.
A thousand thanks for deigning to honor my simple inquiry which your
cogent and level-headed observations.
Carry on!
Dr H
}
}>
}>
}> Thank you for your time.
}>
}> Sincerely,
}>
}> Hiawatha, aka Dr H
}
}--
}CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE
}http://stardrive.org
}
}
Dr H
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}Corrected version
[snip, duplicate of previous reply with minor alterations]
}My information is good. The minds of my detractors are not good.
Does the desire to discuss your ideas necessarily make one a
"detractor" of those ideas? I fail to see the logic of this
conclusion.
You say your information is good, and perhaps it is. But how
are we to know that without questioning? A trivial but very
necessary inquiry suggests itself: good for *what*? If you are
unwilling to defend your ideas, we are bound to speculate on what
you have given us. Is that your intent?
}A recent Ph.D. young scientist just got an IEEE Award for a discovery
}inspired on my ideas, according to him. His university has taken out a
}patent for an important new technology. This would not have happened if
}I had been cowed by the morons who flame me and want to take over usenet
}for their stupid petty ignorant trivia. Only a moron would claim to know
}what should or should not be allowed on usenet.
How comforting to know that I, apparently, am not among the "morons",
as I made not suggestion whatsoever as to what should be "allowed on
usenet". Forgive my saying so, but you do seem rather defensive on
this issue, perhaps to the point of seeing censorship where none is
intended, such as in my query to you.
Indeed, I am suggesting that you avail yourself yet more extensively
of the benefits of Usenet, by engaging in ongoing discussion of your
ideas in the fora to which you post. As they stand now, you postings
have not a little of the character to the oddball political diatribes
one finds tacked to public bulletin boards and utility poles.
It is entirely within your power to change that impression.
Dr H
Dr H
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}
}
}Pi wrote:
}
}> Dude, I am having difficulty following your responses to your critics.
}> Wading through the prolific "clap trap" is tedious. ....
}>
}> Are you "consciously" and strategically reacting to their dysfunctions?
}......
}>
}> By the way, to the extent that you know me, is there a particular forum
}> or newsgroup that you think that I would actually be "challenged" in?
}> Is there anywhere in your opinion where there is the fewest idiots?
}
}If you find one let me know.
This begs the question of why you bother posting to places you seem to
be convinced are occupied solely by "idiots"?
}> Do you think that you are speaking to the deaf sometimes (no "ears to hear")?
Another way of asking the same question.
}> Is there anywhere that you know of where the geniuses turn their
}> "talents" on themselves for true self-realization purposes?
}>
}> Is there any particular area of study that understands metaphoric as
}> opposed to stuperstitious religious dogma? Does anyone to your
}> knowledge understand that religion is a form of psychology and/or
}> psychological mind control?
}>
}> I believe that this is so wide spread that it is not useful to
}> considerate it to be a conspiracy. I seriously do not think that the
}> people involved even know what they are doing and the full extent that
}> they are doing it.
I think this person has raised legitimate questions. Obviously you are
of a different opinion, but it would be instructive to know why.
Dr H
Edward Green
Perhaps I may be of assistance?
>On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>}If people want me to respond they have to copy me and I will respond. I am a
>}very busy person.
>
> No doubt you are. I thank you for taking the time from your very full
> schedule to send not one, but /three/ responses to my e-mail, not to
> mention posting it to five newsgroups, as I neglected to do myself.
>
> Just in passing, I would note that, although I am not personally offended,
> a number of people would take exception to your posting of private e-mail
> without their permission.
<snip>
>}You sound like a censor.
>
> What an odd interpretation. I am the exact opposite of a censor: I
> adovcate free and open discussion of all topics in a public forum.
That you are <irony off>.
<snip>
>}So my position is not odds the /raison
>}d'etre/ for Usenet at all. It is merely convenient for me. It is a simple
>}matter for anyone to cc to sarf...@well.com for my response.
<snip>
>}I have avoided nothing. Again I am too busy to check the usenets.
What an odd, yet pleasing usage.
<snip>
>}I answer queries when I get them. If you like simply tell people that.
>
> Well, as you have been kind enough to post your response to my e-mail to
> hell and gone (if you'll pardon my French), I imagine that some of them
> are being so informed at this very moment.
>}From what I have been told by competent people who do look, most of the
>}responses to my pearls of wisdom are from ignorant fools.
>
> I confess I am a bit taken aback at this admission that someone of your
> obvious intellect would trust second hand accounts when he could so
> handily obtain first hand information, given the ease of the technology.
>
> Be that as it may, I submit that the appropriate course to take with
> the ignorant is to /educate/ them, rather than deride them out of hand
> as fools. True, some of them may /be/ fools, but then there is no
> lack of fools among the allegedly well-informed, either.
Amen to that, brother.
>}> So perhaps you could enlighten me: what is it you feel you are
>}> accomplishing by posting huge volumes of material which you seem
>}> unwilling to discuss, to newsgroups in which, to put it mildly,
>}> you don't seem to be regarded very kindly by most of the regulars?
>}
>}The "regulars" as you call them do not own the usenet.
>
> If I gave the impression that I thought that, I apologize; I certainly
> did not intend to convey anything of the sort. As some who know me from
> other newsgroups could attest, I am one of the very last people who would
> suggest that newsgroup regulars "owned" the Usenet.
Again, that you are.
>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
>}I shall not be cowed by a ignorant mob of marching morons who are of the
>}same mentality of those who burn books and shout down real intelligence and
>}learning. I defy them.
>
> Bravo! I applaud your position! Even though I have not perceived these
> hoards of metaphorical book-burners in the groups to which you post;
> doubtless your insights in this area are more perspicarious than my own.
Well, you know and I know that you know, whatever the peculiar merits
of Dr. Sarfatti's posting, what he is talking about. :-|
And now, Dr. H, the fruits of my offer of alleged assistance:
Although I should not put words in Dr. S's mouth, and I do not
really know what he intends, it strikes me that the small contretemps
reported at the beginning of your post, that without your prior
consent he did post your email, and further regarding your assertion
that, posting on public fora, Dr. Sarfatti does not engage in public
discussion, against the traditional policy and methods of such
fora, and contrary to the public good, might be the result of a
small misunderstanding between you and Dr. S.
I believe he is saying that he _will_ respond to comments to his public
postings publicly, but he asks that, as a courtesy, you "copy" him
when you post, so that he is altered to your public comment. Thus,
kind sir, when you emailed the good Dr., he may have assumed you were
following this convention, and publicly posted his reply to your
email, intending no harm nor yet any breach of etiquette.
Although I am not qualified to judge the good Dr's thought, I would
say in my opinion that he is sound on some subtle issues of the
connection of consciousness to possible physical explanation; an area
in which many exhibit shocking logical macula, while on the other
hand, many of his postings seem redolent of that barnyard metaphor
which perhaps would be even more forceful to anybody who had actually
worked on a farm, and may have had to shovel the stuff; thus, he is
enigmatic.
My very best wishes on your continued literate posting endeavors, Dr.
H., and may I offer you my public thanks for duty as a defender of
true free speech, public discussion, and the American way of life.
God bless you, Dr. H.
[cc'd by email]
Dr H
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 e...@panix.com wrote:
}Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
}
}Perhaps I may be of assistance?
All assistance gratefully accepted.
Dr. Jack wrote:
}>}You sound like a censor.
I responded:
}> What an odd interpretation. I am the exact opposite of a censor: I
}> adovcate free and open discussion of all topics in a public forum.
}
}That you are <irony off>.
Thank you.
Dr. Jack:
}>}I have avoided nothing. Again I am too busy to check the usenets.
}
}What an odd, yet pleasing usage.
Indeed. Has a bit of the koan about it.
Dr. Jack:
}>}The "regulars" as you call them do not own the usenet.
}>
}> If I gave the impression that I thought that, I apologize; I certainly
}> did not intend to convey anything of the sort. As some who know me from
}> other newsgroups could attest, I am one of the very last people who would
}> suggest that newsgroup regulars "owned" the Usenet.
}
}Again, that you are.
And thank you again.
Dr. Jack:
}>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
}
}I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
Seems rather harsh for someone to judge the inhabitants of at least five
newsgroups collectively in this way when he admits he doesn't bother
to read them.
}>}I shall not be cowed by a ignorant mob of marching morons who are of the
}>}same mentality of those who burn books and shout down real intelligence and
}>}learning. I defy them.
}>
}> Bravo! I applaud your position! Even though I have not perceived these
}> hoards of metaphorical book-burners in the groups to which you post;
}> doubtless your insights in this area are more perspicarious than my own.
}
}Well, you know and I know that you know, whatever the peculiar merits
}of Dr. Sarfatti's posting, what he is talking about. :-|
But I don't: that was the whole reason for my message to him. Oh, I
can hazard a guess: Dr. Jack has had prior bad experiences on Usenet
and has decided that virtually everyone who posts there is an idiot,
a moron, or a jerk. But this makes it all the more puzzling to me
that someone self-described as famous and extremely busy -- not to
mention who compares himself to Einstein -- should waste his time
posting for the rabble.
}And now, Dr. H, the fruits of my offer of alleged assistance:
}Although I should not put words in Dr. S's mouth, and I do not
}really know what he intends, it strikes me that the small contretemps
}reported at the beginning of your post, that without your prior
}consent he did post your email, and further regarding your assertion
}that, posting on public fora, Dr. Sarfatti does not engage in public
}discussion, against the traditional policy and methods of such
}fora, and contrary to the public good, might be the result of a
}small misunderstanding between you and Dr. S.
This is entirely possible.
}I believe he is saying that he _will_ respond to comments to his public
}postings publicly, but he asks that, as a courtesy, you "copy" him
}when you post, so that he is altered to your public comment. Thus,
}kind sir, when you emailed the good Dr., he may have assumed you were
}following this convention, and publicly posted his reply to your
}email, intending no harm nor yet any breach of etiquette.
Again, possible. However, the header of my e-mail contained *no
newsgroups*, a fact which surely should have been evident to someone
who finds the technology to be 'easy'. Dr. Jack had to /add
those newsgroups back in/ before replying, so it is doubtful that
one of his massive intellect was confused in the way you suggest.
Furthermore, I submit that if the Good Doctor intends to set up
and live by his own Usenet conventions, rather than those of
the vast majority of other users, that it behooves /him/ to make
those intentions perfectly clear, and not jump to the conclusion that
those unable to divine his inner thoughts are "morons".
As to breaches of etiqutte, or in this case netiquette, I am not bothered
by the posting of my mail, as it contained nothing I would not have said
publicly; I e-mailed because it didn't seem that Dr. Jack was responding
to public inquiries. That said, I /do/ think it is rude to post
repeatedly to /any/ newsgroup and not bother to read or reply to
responses.
}Although I am not qualified to judge the good Dr's thought, I would
}say in my opinion that he is sound on some subtle issues of the
}connection of consciousness to possible physical explanation; an area
}in which many exhibit shocking logical macula, while on the other
}hand, many of his postings seem redolent of that barnyard metaphor
}which perhaps would be even more forceful to anybody who had actually
}worked on a farm, and may have had to shovel the stuff; thus, he is
}enigmatic.
As I indicated in another post to sci.skeptic last week, I am familiar
with some of the Doctor's past publications. Personally, I don't buy
the consciousness/quantum mechanics connection, but I am willing to
engage in rational debate on the topic with anyone willing to produce
evidence which they believe will convince me. Call me an agnostic.
}My very best wishes on your continued literate posting endeavors, Dr.
}H., and may I offer you my public thanks for duty as a defender of
}true free speech, public discussion, and the American way of life.
}
}God bless you, Dr. H.
And thank you a third time, Edward.
Dr H
Edward Green
<snip>
>Dr. Jack:
>}>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
>}
>}I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
>
> Seems rather harsh for someone to judge the inhabitants of at least five
> newsgroups collectively in this way when he admits he doesn't bother
> to read them.
>
>}>}I shall not be cowed by a ignorant mob of marching morons who are of the
>}>}same mentality of those who burn books and shout down real intelligence and
>}>}learning. I defy them.
>}>
>}> Bravo! I applaud your position! Even though I have not perceived these
>}> hoards of metaphorical book-burners in the groups to which you post;
>}> doubtless your insights in this area are more perspicarious than my own.
>}
>}Well, you know and I know that you know, whatever the peculiar merits
>}of Dr. Sarfatti's posting, what he is talking about. :-|
>
> But I don't: that was the whole reason for my message to him. Oh, I
> can hazard a guess: Dr. Jack has had prior bad experiences on Usenet
> and has decided that virtually everyone who posts there is an idiot,
> a moron, or a jerk. But this makes it all the more puzzling to me
> that someone self-described as famous and extremely busy -- not to
> mention who compares himself to Einstein -- should waste his time
> posting for the rabble.
Well, I think you know the kind of experience he is talking about, or
else you are being disingenuous; you know that if one throws a random
dart down on Usenet one has some non-negligible probability of having
the kind of experience Dr. Jack is referring to, without great regard
to the internal consistency or merit of one's post, if they excite a
critical mass of "the regulars" in that locale. Now, what one will do
in such a situation is a function of one's personality; I tire of
rancorous debate with an ever widening circle of bandwagon jumping
people who see an approved outsider target, and leave them in peace.
Maybe this is pusillanimous... maybe I should (which ethics?)
continue to post in such situations, exciting the regulars, as a
expression of freedom of the nets?
Well, H, I don't have the personality for it; I find it corrosive
to argue with corrosive people, and there is also the issue of
time. So, there is a third way; you could continue to post on the
offending group, as an aforesaid demonstration of freedom of the
nets, responding to only those people who cc: you (though why dufi
should refrain from cc'ing you, I'm not sure, unless it is that
the internal prohibition on private abuse, in somebody's virtual
front door, is still stronger than the vestigial restraints on
public abuse, a merest stump of a tail, only visible to anatomists
who know where to look.
So sir, while I applaud your continued efforts in this direction,
without irony, I suspect you of the smallest nuance of disingenuity
when you claim not to understand his meaning. But I do agree I find
it a little strange to continue to publish to groups you have
internally, statistically, labeled as beyond the pale; though it be as
he says, there may be one person reading who is interested in what you
have to say, and will write you, and you are asserting freedom of the net.
There is a growing norm to make public Usenet discussion groups into
chat groups, where topic is not so important as personality, one which
you are doing such a yeoman job of combating, last I saw.
Personally I would like to "combat" at least one group by opening
the door and throwing a fragmentation grenade inside, if I knew
how to do this, a virtual operation I would also like to perform
on a local chat group frequented by computer geeks with a large
macula in from of the double standard they adopt for treating
insiders and outsiders (hint: crass genital based insults are ok
for female insiders, but let a male outsider merely turn all the
phrases around, in fair play, and of course that makes him a boarish
sexist).
I would like to do this, I say, and blow up the innocent and guilty
alike, but I lack the means, and so, I will simply let the cretins
win that battle. They have the field.
<snip>
>}I believe he is saying that he _will_ respond to comments to his public
>}postings publicly, but he asks that, as a courtesy, you "copy" him
>}when you post, so that he is altered to your public comment. Thus,
>}kind sir, when you emailed the good Dr., he may have assumed you were
>}following this convention, and publicly posted his reply to your
>}email, intending no harm nor yet any breach of etiquette.
>
> Again, possible. However, the header of my e-mail contained *no
> newsgroups*, a fact which surely should have been evident to someone
> who finds the technology to be 'easy'. Dr. Jack had to /add
> those newsgroups back in/ before replying, so it is doubtful that
> one of his massive intellect was confused in the way you suggest.
I had thought of this, and as long as I am theorizing in advance of
the Sarfatti, I might say that if you seemed to be replying to some
post of his, or quoted a post in your email, he may have simply
assumed yours was either a public reply or intended for a public
reply, though your newsreader may have lacked the proper cc: facility.
There are, I have heard rumor, inferior newsreaders about.
> Furthermore, I submit that if the Good Doctor intends to set up
> and live by his own Usenet conventions, rather than those of
> the vast majority of other users, that it behooves /him/ to make
> those intentions perfectly clear, and not jump to the conclusion that
> those unable to divine his inner thoughts are "morons".
Here, I must agree with you; he would do well to add his requirement
in his sig, like the one's that say "remove XXX for email".
> As to breaches of etiqutte, or in this case netiquette, I am not bothered
> by the posting of my mail, as it contained nothing I would not have said
> publicly; I e-mailed because it didn't seem that Dr. Jack was responding
> to public inquiries. That said, I /do/ think it is rude to post
> repeatedly to /any/ newsgroup and not bother to read or reply to
> responses.
I do agree with you, except I might make an exception in the case
of someone who will respond publicly, if you email him... well, I
will reserve judgment on this one. Certainly it is more presumptuous
than checking for public replies, though not quite as presumptuous
as those who ask a question and demand an email response. Like
the ability to cross-post, I suppose newreaders contain the courtesy
copy facility because somebody at sometime thought this might be
a polite thing to do, to copy your respondent, in case he misses
your post.
I agree it is a bit presumptuous to demand a courtesy.
> As I indicated in another post to sci.skeptic last week, I am familiar
> with some of the Doctor's past publications. Personally, I don't buy
> the consciousness/quantum mechanics connection, but I am willing to
> engage in rational debate on the topic with anyone willing to produce
> evidence which they believe will convince me. Call me an agnostic.
We could engage in a side discussion on this, if you like. I have
no views on any of the details of Dr. S's model in this regard,
nor even if it deserves the name of "model", but I do think his
effort is correct in spirit.
Harry H Conover
:
:
: }If people want me to respond they have to copy me and I will respond. I am a
: }very busy person.
:
: No doubt you are. I thank you for taking the time from your very full
: schedule to send not one, but /three/ responses to my e-mail, not to
: mention posting it to five newsgroups, as I neglected to do myself.
Damn, you must be new here not to realize that Sarfatti is just another
Usenet Kook, in the same mold as Cagle and Archie Pu. As most regular
newsgroup readers know, posters like these are best left ignored out of
both health and sanity considerations.
Harry C.
dr._digger
> Damn, you must be new here not to realize that Sarfatti is just another
> Usenet Kook, in the same mold as Cagle and Archie Pu. As most regular
> newsgroup readers know, posters like these are best left ignored out of
> both health and sanity considerations.
Are you crazy? Humm.. Usenet was made for kooks.
Some of us on some of these groups recognize true genius when we see
it. Unless your a censor, please stop trying to piss Dr. Jack off.
dr. digger, PMAFA, BsD
Richard Herring
> Dr H (hiaw...@efn.org) wrote:
> :
> : No doubt you are. I thank you for taking the time from your very full
> : schedule to send not one, but /three/ responses to my e-mail, not to
> : mention posting it to five newsgroups, as I neglected to do myself.
<fx> whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh </fx>
> Damn, you must be new here not to realize that Sarfatti is just another
> Usenet Kook, in the same mold as Cagle and Archie Pu. As most regular
> newsgroup readers know, posters like these are best left ignored out of
> both health and sanity considerations.
Brassy, steely, coppery, irony, tinny.
Spot the odd one out.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Edward Green
><fx> whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh </fx>
>
>> Damn, you must be new here not to realize that Sarfatti is just another
>> Usenet Kook, in the same mold as Cagle and Archie Pu. As most regular
>> newsgroup readers know, posters like these are best left ignored out of
>> both health and sanity considerations.
>
>Brassy, steely, coppery, irony, tinny.
>Spot the odd one out.
"Ferrous".
jmfb...@aol.com
Tinny. Have to add a consonant to distinguish metal from size.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Lucianarchy
DanKettler <WEB...@psicounsel.com_seesignature> wrote in message
news:3A7FF97F...@psicounsel.com_seesignature...
> Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> > Haunter <Hau...@castles.com> wrote in message news:3a91ce4e....@cnews.newsguy.com...
> > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:32:29 -0000, "Lucianarchy" <lu...@narchy.fsnet>
>
> > > >But I'll tell you what's "weird". People who'll go to *extraordinary* lengths
> > > >to create 'personality' issues regarding USENET posts, at the expense
> > > >of discussing the *information* contained *within* those posts. It's
> > > >"weird" to have your posting account hacked, one after the other,
> > > >to be mailbombed ceaselessly, to be sent obscene and intimidating
> > > >mail, day after day. It's "weird" to have 'newsclippings' of other
> > > >posters 'criminal convictions emailed from anonymous mailers.
> > > >It's "weird" to have personal inf. and details about your family
> > > >dredged up from other sources and have them plastered across
> > > >USENET, to have your computer hacked and your private email
> > > >messages picked up, to be subject to claims that you killed your own
> > > >child. Perhaps you think it's "weird" for posters to USENET
> > > >to switch different *posting handles* on occasion to escape the spam
> > > >attacks, third party subscriptions to endless piles of email 'lists',
> > > >vile, sick email stalking, hacking and other methods of intimidation.
> > > >
> > > >"Weird" that other people assign your gender and then build up
> > > >bizarre and obsessive fantasies about you when you've kept personality out of
> > > >the content of your *USENET* posts.?
> > > >
> > > >"Weird" that people use the excuse of putting personality issues
> > > >in front of subject information on *USENET*?
> > > >
> > > >"Weird" that these same people look for whatever opportunity they can to
> > > >attach a lable like 'kook', 'spam' or 'sockpuppet' in order to censor the
> > > >content, and publicly deride, defame and persecute individuals, rather
> > > >than deal with the information and news that USENET is designed for?
> > > >
> > > >"Weird" that your posts get blocked and cancelled?
> > > >
> > > >"Weird" that creeps harass the users ISP to the point that the ISP would rather deny
> > > >the user posting access instead of looking into the orgnisation behind
> > > >these 'denial of service' attacks?
> > > >
> > > >"Weird"? Not if you look any further than end of your nose, but you're
> > > >not about to do that, are you......Haunter / Patrick / Psi Guy?
>
> HAUNTER: > > So, I'll take that as a yes [that Luci says she's
> sockpuppeting]
>
> DK: Oh, Haunter, you hardly ever know what you are writing about
> on USENET. As for USENET, and the knowledge that should have
> come your way after one year of experience, you are clueless.
>
> DK: It's contrary to Netiquette to tell of one writes in private
> e-mail.
> To compound the breach of custom on USENET, you lied about
> the e-mail of OTHER people, to denigrate me.
>
> DK: BTW, in my former post this morning, I left something
> out. You actually wrote that I _forged_ a certificate. You
> made out like it was just a joke, but the way it was written,
> others could have believed you were serious.
>
> DK: I was not explict enough, either, about the "paranoia" accusation.
>
> DK: You wrote that a certain clinical description of paranoia posted,
> that
> I'd exhibited a certain number of the symptoms.
>
> DK: What a creepy thing, when your writing was,
> (as I showed) absolutely false. You didn't
> have the courage to try to explain which
> symptoms, or why. And, you lacked the
> fortitude to answer my rebuttal.
>
> LUCI: > No, I *don't* use sock puppets. You clearly glossed over what is
> being said,
> LUCI: > for whatever reason, I don't know. If you want to apply
> skepticism, ask
> LUCI: > Dominion where / who / how he got his 'evidence' of 'sock
> puppets' from.
>
> HAUNTER: > > Plonk [means: "I am killfiling you" -- means: I will not
> see your posts]
>
> DK: Like you, supposedly, have a clue about what
> reasons a person should killfile anyone for.
Oh, he's reading them all alright LOL! Hi, Haunter, Patrick, Psi-Guy... whatever!!
> DK: Like you, supposedly, have a clue about what Luci
> wrote, above -- her experiences on USENET, which
> I was here on USENET to witness. You were not.
>
> DK: ...which I have written about having occurred
> against a number of people for the past decade.
>
> DK: ...for which I have referenced DOCUMENTATION THAT CAN BE
> VERIFIED...
>
> NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
Let me clarify something here. Like the Uri Geller story, when I first came
across the notion of Net Censorship, I laughed, loud and long. It seemed
a *preposterous* idea, as preposterous as people bending spoons using PK.
But then I experienced some patterns of behaviour which centred around my
participation within these groups. First of all, it was simple name calling, then
complaints to my service provider about non existent spam, then outright lies
and defamation and eventually accusations that I had killed my own child.
Funny, huh? I put it down to trolls and left USENET for a while.
When I returned, within a few days my email account was inaccessible
due to spam relating to some of the vilest topics around. I started to receive
'newspaper clippings' about another poster, sick stuff, I handed it straight over.
More trolls? Don't know. I kept myself out of personality discussions, killfiled
the trolls and concentrated on posting on-topic stuff about the paranormal,
finding an intriguing 'other side' to the Uri Geller story which I had previously
dismissed due to the information I had accepted as true coming from who I now
know as 'information abusers'. These people spend great amounts of time re-writing
history, they are 'revisionists', 'information abusers' and proponents of misinformation.
The level of misinformation appeared to run deep and strong.
Anyone who proposed positive evidence is immediately ridiculed
and labelled a 'kook', 'troll', 'spammer' anything, in fact, which could detract the
would be reader away from the evidence. I don't agree with everything Dan
says, and I'm sure the feeling's mutual. However, the fact remains, align yourself
with proposing positive, verifiable information and there is a likelihood you will
be targeted with spurious complaints and woebetide you if you've got any
'skeletons in your closet. These people will drag in your friends, family,
children... nothing is sacred to them. Perceiving people to be 'proponents'
by what they *call* themselves is a folly. Read the words themselves
and be prepared to do your own research. Feel free to be skeptical of what I am
saying, check the archives of www.deja.com and search topics, posters.
>
> DK: Just in the past few days, e-mail spammers using my former
> e-mail address have been sending spam mail. See
> news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail
> and my recent complaint. That brings complaints to my INTERNET
> SERVICE PROVIDER. That could result in DENIAL OF SERVICE.
> The deception of falsely using my e-mail address, for this
> obvious purpose, is censorship. The fanatics, obviously,
> don't like my web pages which expose their activities.
>
> DK: They would like for it to be difficult, or impossible,
> for me to find a server for the web pages.
>
> DK: Just a short time ago, I was e-mail bombed with 10 THOUSAND
> e-mails within hours.
>
> DK: Postings about the e-mail hinted that my posting habits (perfectly
> legal)
> annoyed people. Until I employed the present protection evident
> in the heading
> and signature of this post, I had been censored.
>
> DK: But you wouldn't know about that. That would appear
> to be "paranoia" to you, wouldn't it?
>
> LUCI: > OK, that's not my problem. It does, however, leave you being a
> *complete*
> LUCI: > hypocrite, Haunter / Psi Guy / Patrick... whatever.
>
> DK: Oh, Luci, don't be so *HARD* on the guy -- ha ha...
>
> LUCI: > Indeed, it has explained quite a lot about your participation
> here.
>
> DK: Yes, try leaving personalities out of your discussions, Haunter.
>
> > Discussion on USENET is about topical posts. You are playing into the
> > hands of those who will use 'personality' issues on USENET ( which is
> > always *completely* irrelevant in such a forum) to detract from the actual
> > *discussion* of topic. If you don't realise this yet, you are either very
> > naive, or extremely dim.
>
> DK: Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth.
>
> DK: Now, Haunter, it behooves you to just read this
> from both Luci, and myself, digest it, learn from
> it, and don't answer. Nearly anything you
> write in arguments will be your own foot stuck
> in your own mouth.
>
> DK: Just stay out of personality issues and
> accusations that you know nothing about,
>
> Write about the paranormal, and no paranormalist
> will bother you.
>
> --
>
> send private e-mail via web site
>
> www | p - s - i - c - o - u - n - s - e - l | com
DanKettler
CC: e-mail sarf...@well.com
Lucianarchy <lu...@narchy.fsnet> wrote:
> Edward Green wrote in message <983l9l$f77$1...@news.panix.com>...
> >Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>Dr. Jack:
> >>}>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
> >>}
> >>}I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
> >> Seems rather harsh for someone to judge the inhabitants of at least five
> >> newsgroups collectively in this way when he admits he doesn't bother
> >> to read them.
Evidently he did, at one time, read them. Friends of his report
the activities on USENET to him from time to time. He wrote about
that recently, and that was copied to USENET.
The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
dishonest, who are character assassins.
> > DK: in private e-mail. To compound the breach of custom
> > DK: on USENET, you lied about the e-mail of OTHER people,
> > DK: to denigrate me.
> >
> > DK: BTW, in my former post this morning, I left something
> > out. You actually wrote that I _forged_ a certificate. You
> > made out like it was just a joke, but the way it was written,
> > others could have believed you were serious.
> >
> > DK: I was not explict enough, either, about the "paranoia" accusation.
> >
> > DK: You wrote that a certain clinical description
> > of paranoia posted, that I'd exhibited a certain
> > number of the symptoms.
> >
> > DK: What a creepy thing, when your writing was,
> > (as I showed) absolutely false. You didn't
> > have the courage to try to explain which
> > symptoms, or why. And, you lacked the
> > fortitude to answer my rebuttal.
> >
> > LUCI: > No, I *don't* use sock puppets. You clearly glossed
> > LUCI: > over what is being said, for whatever reason, I don't
> > LUCI: > know. If you want to apply skepticism, ask
> > LUCI: > Dominion where / who / how he got his 'evidence' of 'sock
> > LUCI: > puppets' from.
> >
> > HAUNTER: > > Plonk [means: "I am killfiling you" -- means: I will not
> > see your posts]
> >
> > DK: Like you, supposedly, have a clue about what
> > reasons a person should killfile anyone for.
LUCI: > Oh, he's reading them all alright LOL! Hi, Haunter, Patrick, Psi-Guy...
whatever!!
> > DK: Like you, supposedly, have a clue about what Luci
> > wrote, above -- her experiences on USENET, which
> > I was here on USENET to witness. You were not.
> >
> > DK: ...which I have written about having occurred
> > against a number of people for the past decade.
> >
> > DK: ...for which I have referenced DOCUMENTATION THAT CAN BE
> > VERIFIED...
> >
> > NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> >
> > http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
LUCI: > Let me clarify something here. Like the Uri Geller story, when I first
came
LUCI: > across the notion of Net Censorship, I laughed, loud and long. It seemed
LUCI: > a *preposterous* idea, as preposterous as people bending spoons using
PK.
LUCI: > But then I experienced some patterns of behaviour which centred
LUCI: > around my participation within these groups. First of all, it
LUCI: > was simple name calling, then complaints to my service provider
LUCI: > about non existent spam, then outright lies and defamation and
LUCI: > eventually accusations that I had killed my own child.
LUCI: > Funny, huh? I put it down to trolls and left USENET for a while.
LUCI:
> When I returned, within a few days my email account was inaccessible
> due to spam relating to some of the vilest topics around. I started to receive
> 'newspaper clippings' about another poster, sick stuff, I handed it straight over.
> More trolls? Don't know. I kept myself out of personality discussions, killfiled
> the trolls and concentrated on posting on-topic stuff about the paranormal,
> finding an intriguing 'other side' to the Uri Geller story which I had previously
> dismissed due to the information I had accepted as true coming from who I now
> know as 'information abusers'. These people spend great amounts of time re-writing
> history, they are 'revisionists', 'information abusers' and proponents of misinformation.
LUCI:
> The level of misinformation appeared to run deep and strong.
LUCI:
> > > you being a *complete* hypocrite, Haunter / Psi Guy
> > > / Patrick... whatever.
> > DK: Oh, Luci, don't be so *HARD* on the guy -- ha ha...
> > LUCI: > Indeed, it has explained quite a lot about your participation
> > here.
> > DK: Yes, try leaving personalities out of your discussions, Haunter.
> > > Discussion on USENET is about topical posts. You are playing into the
> > > hands of those who will use 'personality' issues on USENET ( which is
> > > always *completely* irrelevant in such a forum) to detract from the actual
> > > *discussion* of topic. If you don't realise this yet, you are either very
> > > naive, or extremely dim.
> > DK: Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth.
> > DK: Now, Haunter, it behooves you to just read this
> > from both Luci, and myself, digest it, learn from
> > it, and don't answer. Nearly anything you
> > write in arguments will be your own foot stuck
> > in your own mouth.
> > DK: Just stay out of personality issues and
> > accusations that you know nothing about,
> > Write about the paranormal, and no paranormalist
> > will bother you.
<snip>
I would like to point out, in light of the above, about the
latest issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. I do not subscribe to
the magazine, but I occasionally flip through it in the few
news-type outlets that carry it.
This issue attacks alternative medicine, vitamin and similar
sales, and it has a detailed bigoted run on those who have
an interest in the paranormal, citing the CSICOP "awards"
they give to such broadcasts as the Art Bell show.
See:
http://www.psicounsel.com/takstock.html
So, here we have "awards." Sound like the "kook awards"
of USENET? Well, there is a parallel there. They do
much the same OFF the net as they do ON the net.
Their attack on those with interest in the paranormal is one
of assumption. They assume that such people are completely
detached from reality, and unable to comprehend what
"science" is.
That's hardly, according the dictionary, "skeptical."
The really ironic part of all this is that these
people often accuse paranormalists of being gullible.
Some of the most skeptical people I know, including John
Benneth, have belief in the paranormal and alternative
medicine.
I was just talking to John Benneth on the phone a
couple of days ago. I was telling him of a new
discovery about the aging process. He was extremely
skeptical, yet open to looking into it more thoroughly,
and when I say "thoroughly," I mean it was to the an
extremely thorough inquiry. I tell of a man who
is physically in his mid thirties, who's 53, and
Benneth wants to see his driver's license. Now,
that's real skepticism, and I admire that.
John Benneth wants to see the laboratory, and see
the double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials.
John Benneth is the person who tried to meet RANDI'S
so-called "challenge." See his web site...
All this has been debated regarding the Randi challenge,
and HOMEOPATHY on USENET. The debates are at, and linked
from, the above.
He was very careful to look into the scientific studies
of HOMEOPATHY before he got involved with it. See
all the science referenced from the above site.
Yet, the fact remains that the so-called "skeptics"
are EXTREMELY GULLIBLE. Look at how they follow
every word of James Randi, as if each word HAD to
be the truth. This is so, even though
he's been dubunked again and again.
The established facts, with copies of USENET debates,
about the RANDI CHALLENGE are here:
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml
When you get a chance check out the latest SKEPTICAL INQUIRER
in the library or your local large bookseller.
Following SKEPTICAL INQUIRER featured articles, expect
the subjects to be prevelant in the paranormal/new-age
and alternative health related newsgroups.
Expect alternative medicine, vitamins, and other alternative
remedies to be attacked vehemently on USENET right after such
an article. I'm already seeing forgeries of prominent posters
in misc.health.alternative
--
send private e-mail via web site
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
Dr H
Sure. But what does one rationally do in that situation? One can
look elsewhere on Usenet to find a locale more receptive to one's
ideas. Or if one feels that one's ideas are worth fighting for, one
can stick around and duke it out with the regulars. Dr. Jack has
done neither.
}Now, what one will do
}in such a situation is a function of one's personality; I tire of
}rancorous debate with an ever widening circle of bandwagon jumping
}people who see an approved outsider target, and leave them in peace.
}Maybe this is pusillanimous... maybe I should (which ethics?)
}continue to post in such situations, exciting the regulars, as a
}expression of freedom of the nets?
I'll grant that is another possible approach. Doesn't seem very
productive, though. Indeed the closest possible explanation I've
seen for that behavior which makes sense to me is that it's being
done under the guise of "performance art".
Well, if that's the case, that's fine. I have nothing against
performance art -- I engage in it myself, sometimes even on Usenet.
But there seemed a weightier purpose to Dr. Jack's postings, which
I took as going beyond mere display, hence my inquiry as to his
motivations.
}Well, H, I don't have the personality for it; I find it corrosive
}to argue with corrosive people, and there is also the issue of
}time.
One doesn't have to engage the corrosive types in debate if one
chooses not to. I question the implication that *all* of the
responses to *all* of Dr. Jack's many postings in *all* of the
newsgroups were/are derrogatory and corrosive. How about engaging
those which aren't?
}So, there is a third way; you could continue to post on the
}offending group, as an aforesaid demonstration of freedom of the
}nets, responding to only those people who cc: you (though why dufi
}should refrain from cc'ing you, I'm not sure, unless it is that
}the internal prohibition on private abuse, in somebody's virtual
}front door, is still stronger than the vestigial restraints on
}public abuse, a merest stump of a tail, only visible to anatomists
}who know where to look.
It seems to me that if one has what one believes to be valuable
information -- so valuable that one is virtually *compelled* to share
it -- that there is a good deal more to promoting learning than flinging
wads of obscure verbiage at people and hoping some of it will stick.
But that may just be the teacher in me speaking.
}So sir, while I applaud your continued efforts in this direction,
}without irony, I suspect you of the smallest nuance of disingenuity
}when you claim not to understand his meaning.
I will not deny that I have been known to make creative use of
disingenuity on occasion to press one point or another , but I do
claim innocence in this case. I was familiar with the Dr.'s name
from some years ago, and was/am frankly puzzled by his observed
Usenet behavior.
}But I do agree I find
}it a little strange to continue to publish to groups you have
}internally, statistically, labeled as beyond the pale;
Which is a major part of my point...
}though it be as
}he says, there may be one person reading who is interested in what you
}have to say, and will write you, and you are asserting freedom of the net.
I'll grant that there's a point there, as well. But as I said earlier,
this seems a horribly inefficient way to go about making one's point,
particularly where a question of limited time is involved. Why wade
into a sea of 'ignorant book-buring morons' on the off-chance that one
might accidently stumble across a sympathetic soul once in a blue moon,
when there are surely virtual forests of sympathetic souls elsewhere,
ready and waiting for 'the word', as it were.
My language is starting to reveal my true impression -- that such
behavior is more akin to religious fanaticism than of a desire to
stimulate scientific inquiry.
Indeed, even among the fervently religious there are fanatics, and then
there are fanatics. The Mormons not infrequently show up at my
door here in Oregon, despite the virtually non-existant chance of
their making a convert by so doing. But it would be altogether another
matter if they attempted to take their mission to, say, Baghdad. At
least in my neighborhood they are unlikely to be arested and jailed
for their activity, and there is a non-negligible chance that they
may receive a sympathetic hearing from one of my neighbors.
}There is a growing norm to make public Usenet discussion groups into
}chat groups, where topic is not so important as personality, one which
}you are doing such a yeoman job of combating, last I saw.
Heh, it may be nothing more than performance art by now. Who knows? :-)
}Personally I would like to "combat" at least one group by opening
}the door and throwing a fragmentation grenade inside, if I knew
}how to do this, a virtual operation I would also like to perform
}on a local chat group frequented by computer geeks with a large
}macula in from of the double standard they adopt for treating
}insiders and outsiders (hint: crass genital based insults are ok
}for female insiders, but let a male outsider merely turn all the
}phrases around, in fair play, and of course that makes him a boarish
}sexist).
}
}I would like to do this, I say, and blow up the innocent and guilty
}alike, but I lack the means, and so, I will simply let the cretins
}win that battle. They have the field.
Perhaps I see this as another aspect of the "combat" you allude to
above. In the present case someone who I believe could contribute some
fascinating discussion (though perhaps sci.skeptic isn't the ideal
forum for it), has apparently voluntarily reduced himself to a
mere talking-head lecturer and/or private e-mail guru.
}<snip>
}
}>}I believe he is saying that he _will_ respond to comments to his public
}>}postings publicly, but he asks that, as a courtesy, you "copy" him
}>}when you post, so that he is altered to your public comment. Thus,
}>}kind sir, when you emailed the good Dr., he may have assumed you were
}>}following this convention, and publicly posted his reply to your
}>}email, intending no harm nor yet any breach of etiquette.
}>
}> Again, possible. However, the header of my e-mail contained *no
}> newsgroups*, a fact which surely should have been evident to someone
}> who finds the technology to be 'easy'. Dr. Jack had to /add
}> those newsgroups back in/ before replying, so it is doubtful that
}> one of his massive intellect was confused in the way you suggest.
}
}I had thought of this, and as long as I am theorizing in advance of
}the Sarfatti, I might say that if you seemed to be replying to some
}post of his, or quoted a post in your email, he may have simply
}assumed yours was either a public reply or intended for a public
}reply, though your newsreader may have lacked the proper cc: facility.
}There are, I have heard rumor, inferior newsreaders about.
Again, possible, and I might charitably assume that the Dr. is unfamiliar
with the unix shell-based PINE reader, use of which appears in the
header information of my messages. However, in view of the content of
some of his comments to me, I wonder. I have thus far avoided using the
word "arrogant" to describe any of this behavior, but only with great
difficulty.
}> Furthermore, I submit that if the Good Doctor intends to set up
}> and live by his own Usenet conventions, rather than those of
}> the vast majority of other users, that it behooves /him/ to make
}> those intentions perfectly clear, and not jump to the conclusion that
}> those unable to divine his inner thoughts are "morons".
}
}Here, I must agree with you; he would do well to add his requirement
}in his sig, like the one's that say "remove XXX for email".
He seemed to indicate that he might do something along these lines.
}> As to breaches of etiqutte, or in this case netiquette, I am not bothered
}> by the posting of my mail, as it contained nothing I would not have said
}> publicly; I e-mailed because it didn't seem that Dr. Jack was responding
}> to public inquiries. That said, I /do/ think it is rude to post
}> repeatedly to /any/ newsgroup and not bother to read or reply to
}> responses.
}
}I do agree with you, except I might make an exception in the case
}of someone who will respond publicly, if you email him... well, I
}will reserve judgment on this one. Certainly it is more presumptuous
}than checking for public replies, though not quite as presumptuous
}as those who ask a question and demand an email response.
Granted.
}Like the ability to cross-post, I suppose newreaders contain the courtesy
}copy facility because somebody at sometime thought this might be
}a polite thing to do, to copy your respondent, in case he misses
}your post.
Yes, but I could also observe that both posting and mailing without
indicating in your post that you had done *both*, has been considered
rather crass on Usenet from my earliest experience with the medium.
}I agree it is a bit presumptuous to demand a courtesy.
It is more presumptuous to demand it without informing others of
your demand, and then impugn their intelligence for failing to
divine your unstated demand.
}> As I indicated in another post to sci.skeptic last week, I am familiar
}> with some of the Doctor's past publications. Personally, I don't buy
}> the consciousness/quantum mechanics connection, but I am willing to
}> engage in rational debate on the topic with anyone willing to produce
}> evidence which they believe will convince me. Call me an agnostic.
}
}We could engage in a side discussion on this, if you like. I have
}no views on any of the details of Dr. S's model in this regard,
}nor even if it deserves the name of "model", but I do think his
}effort is correct in spirit.
Heh, side discussion? We seem to have gotten entwined in a meta-
discussion which should have been the side discussion. And to think
that this started off as an e-mail...
Well, it might be interesting to pursue a discussion of Dr. Jack's
theories, though I am posting this from sci.skeptic which, as I say,
might not be the ideal forum. But then, having the discussion in
any group in which the Doctor posts, but will not participate, would
be a little like debating Catholic doctrine in front of the Pope's
front door, and the Pope won't come out to play.
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Lucianarchy wrote:
[sheesh! could you edit just a *little*?]
}Perceiving people to be 'proponents'
}by what they *call* themselves is a folly. Read the words themselves
}and be prepared to do your own research.
Always. :-)
}Feel free to be skeptical of what I am
}saying, check the archives of www.deja.com and search topics, posters.
Oh, I don't doubt that all sorts of weird and wonderful things happen
in the dark corners of the Usenet.
What I am having difficulty fathoming is the connection between your
comments and the topic of this thread. Unless you are suggesting
that running into the odd net kook now and then is justification for
posting incessantly to a newsgroup that one doesn't particiapte in?
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
}Lucianarchy <lu...@narchy.fsnet> wrote:
}
}> Edward Green wrote in message <983l9l$f77$1...@news.panix.com>...
}> >Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
}> ><snip>
}> >>Dr. Jack:
}
}> >>}>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
}> >>}
}> >>}I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
}
}> >> Seems rather harsh for someone to judge the inhabitants of at least five
}> >> newsgroups collectively in this way when he admits he doesn't bother
}> >> to read them.
}
}Evidently he did, at one time, read them. Friends of his report
}the activities on USENET to him from time to time. He wrote about
}that recently, and that was copied to USENET.
Copied to any particular part of Usenet, or all of it?
}The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
}writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
}in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
}about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
}dishonest, who are character assassins.
If such is the case, it would seem that the way to foil character
assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}Dan Kettler wrote:
}> Evidently he did, at one time, read them. Friends of his report
}> the activities on USENET to him from time to time. He wrote about
}> that recently, and that was copied to USENET.
}>
}> The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
}> writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
}> in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
}> about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
}> dishonest, who are character assassins.
}
}Yes, I am not talking about disagreements with ideas which I welcome. Those
}who have disagreements with my ideas should simply cc sarf...@well.com if
}they want to make sure I read them. I am talking about stuff like that recent
}message from a lunatic at University of Newcastle in UK that describes 32
}ways to murder people. Hopefully Scotland Yard is investigating that person.
OK, I concede that yu've explained your position re posting, and I think
I understand it, at least partially. But I'm afraid I still see your
tactic as inefficient at best, and probably ineffective as well.
You indicate a willingness to discuss your ideas with people who have
disagreements. But frankly, it's not at all clear from most of the
posts I've read from you exactly what those ideas are. You seem to
be having conversations with people via e-mail, and then selectively
(randomly) posting sections of them to the newsgroups. Because of this,
reading many of your posts is not unlike walking in on a conversation
that's been going on for hours, and trying to make sense of it, sans
context.
Some in the newsgroups believe you to be having these conversations
with yourself, and in truth I see how they might jump to that conclusion.
[...]
}> > >>}Well, you know and I know that you know, whatever the peculiar merits
}> > >>}of Dr. Sarfatti's posting, what he is talking about. :-|
}>
}> > >> But I don't: that was the whole reason for my message to him. Oh, I
}> > >> can hazard a guess: Dr. Jack has had prior bad experiences on Usenet
}> > >> and has decided that virtually everyone who posts there is an idiot,
}> > >> a moron, or a jerk.
}
}Yes, this is correct. I know many competent scientists I work with who will not
}use sci.physics for precisely this reason. Sci.physics.research is a clique
}controlled by John Baez so that is too narrow also. I continue to post to
}usenets for the rare intelligent person who sees through the flames of the
}marching morons out of "Night of The Living Dead".
All right, I concede that yours is a valid position. I still maintain,
however, that there are more effective ways to disseminate your
information.
}http://www.houseofhorrors.com/night90.htm
}
}Those happy few who fought with me on Saint Crispian's Day, so to speak,
}http://www.chronique.com/Library/Knights/crispen.htm
}are intelligent enough to contact me directly and useful communication ensues.
}So my posts to USENET are simple a filter operation to weed out the morons and
}attract a few Good Men and Women to PSI CORPS of STAR FLEET. :-)
I also take exception to your low view of the inhabitants of Usenet,
which are, after all, just a microcosm of real life. Judging the
majority of them to be "morons" on the basis of your past bad experience
with a few of them is, IMO, neither a very logical nor a very enlightened
view.
}> > >>But this makes it all the more puzzling to me
}> > >> that someone self-described as famous and extremely busy -- not to
}> > >> mention who compares himself to Einstein -- should waste his time
}> > >> posting for the rabble.
}
}Because that is the charter of the Internet Science Education Project as a
}kind of Missionary Group to go out among the trash and rabble in the Mad Max
}Wasteland of Cyberspace and save the minds of those that can be saved. Also the
}fact that I am in many a book and article etc can be easily checked by anyone
}who knows how to use the Internet. Since many humans are stupid, mean spirited,
}arrogant and ignorant, hating what they cannot understand, this is a dangerous
}task.
And here, it would seem, your view of Usenettians is just a microcosm
of your view of people in general.
How sad.
Not only are you likely depriving some of the very people you claim to
want to reach of the benefit of your knowledge and experience, but you
are denying yourself opportunities to learn as well.
To each his own, I suppose. Perhaps someday you'll find the time to
work on the "communicate" part of your tripartate epigraph.
Dr H
Lucianarchy
>
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
>
>}Lucianarchy <lu...@narchy.fsnet> wrote:
>}
>}> >Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>}> ><snip>
>}> >>Dr. Jack:
>}
>}> >>}>}They are a stupid ignorant lynch mob of cognitive rednecks.
>}> >>}
>}> >>}I have to say, another nice turn of phrase. ;)
>}
>}> >> Seems rather harsh for someone to judge the inhabitants of at least five
>}> >> newsgroups collectively in this way when he admits he doesn't bother
>}> >> to read them.
>}
>}the activities on USENET to him from time to time. He wrote about
>}that recently, and that was copied to USENET.
>
>
>}writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
>}in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
>}about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
>}dishonest, who are character assassins.
>
> assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
>
> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
You hit the mail on the head!
Pseudo-skeptics are only intereseted in 'challenge', not reason.
They do this off the net as well as on.
They 'bait' a response to a character attack, then flood the newsgroup
or other media outlet with follow up attacks from sock-puppets and their
legion of organised trolls. For newbies, or those unacustomed to the
technical specifications of newsreaders, the end result is an un-readable
newsgroup, or IOW, censorship.
-----
"I was dancing when I was twelve.." - 'Cosmic Dancer' - Marc Bolan.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
www.peekatyou.org - The Award Winning story of Uri Geller.
Lucianarchy
>
>
>[sheesh! could you edit just a *little*?]
>
>}Perceiving people to be 'proponents'
>}by what they *call* themselves is a folly. Read the words themselves
>}and be prepared to do your own research.
>
> Always. :-)
>
>}Feel free to be skeptical of what I am
>}saying, check the archives of www.deja.com and search topics, posters.
>
> Oh, I don't doubt that all sorts of weird and wonderful things happen
> in the dark corners of the Usenet.
>
> What I am having difficulty fathoming is the connection between your
> comments and the topic of this thread.
I thought you said you always did your research.
Dr H
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}Dr H apparently of Mitch Kapor's (Founder of Lotus) and Steward Brand's (?)
}Electronic Frontier Foundation ? wrote:
Say what?
}> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote:
}>
}> }Yes, I am not talking about disagreements with ideas which I welcome. Those
}> }who have disagreements with my ideas should simply cc sarf...@well.com if
}> }they want to make sure I read them. I am talking about stuff like that recent
}> }message from a lunatic at University of Newcastle in UK that describes 32
}> }ways to murder people. Hopefully Scotland Yard is investigating that person.
}>
}> OK, I concede that you've explained your position re posting, and I think
}> I understand it, at least partially. But I'm afraid I still see your
}> tactic as inefficient at best, and probably ineffective as well.
}
}First of all you are wrong. I already told you intelligent people have
}contacted me through the years because of my usenet posts and it has led to
}important discoveries like the IEEE prize for the development of the SAM
}circuit.
It is not clear that this development was a direct result of you Usenet
posts; I'll take your word for it.
}Second I don't give a damn what you think.
Clearly you do, else you would not be sending me the volumes of information
that you have been.
}Who the hell are you anyway?
Someone who has read some of your published works, and who has been
attempting to make sense out of your Usenet posts. And someone who
approached you with nothing but politeness and candor, and who has
received unwarranted invective in response.
}I will do as I please period!
Obviously.
}How dare you judge efficiency and effectiveness.
How dare *I*? You are posting gobs of information to public discussion
groups, some of which I participate in. I have as much right to question
your motivation as you do to continue posting without engaging anyone in
those fora in meaningful discussion.
And you have the temerity to call *me* a censor?
}The discovery of SAM is ample proof
}that the effort is worth it. Also, it is not any effort at all, merely a
}click of a mouse. Hence the process is very efficient. Because a bunch of
}ignorant morons get enraged with blood-lust for a lynching will not stop me.
I have not suggested that you stop, despite your fantasy to the contrary.
}> You indicate a willingness to discuss your ideas with people who have
}> disagreements. But frankly, it's not at all clear from most of the
}> posts I've read from you exactly what those ideas are.
}
}Frankly that's you problem.
True.
}However, for the record here is a summary of some of the
}key themes running through the record of the past almost 10 years now:
}
}THE NEW EIGHTFOLD WAY
}
}1. What is the mind?
}
}2. How is consciousness generated in the mind?
This is an area of great interest to me. References would be welcome.
[...]
}> You seem to
}> be having conversations with people via e-mail, and then selectively
}> (randomly) posting sections of them to the newsgroups. Because of this,
}> reading many of your posts is not unlike walking in on a conversation
}> that's been going on for hours, and trying to make sense of it, sans
}> context.
}
}This is nonsense, no one forces you or anyone else to read the messages!
Did I say I was being forced? I am reading them voluntarily and trying
to make sense of them.
}I get maybe 100 emails per day. I delete a lot of them.
Good for you; so do I.
}If you are not advanced enough in your
}technical understanding to grok what is going on, simply ignore them.
It may be that you are not advanced enough in your communication skills
to convey what is going on. I could post exerpts from /my/ e-mail
correspondences out of context, and without comment, which I'm sure
you would find mystifying. I don't, because I desire to communicate
rather than pontificate.
}That's what the other morons should do as well.
Your hostility and defensiveness is truly astonishing.
}We are not killing trees here after all.
That's debatable. Where I live a good deal of our electricity is
generated by burning sawdust and wood chips which, last I heard,
comes from trees. The hardware of Usenet, in case you hadn't noticed,
runs on electricity.
}If Moron are worried about bandwidth, then they should remain silent and
}leave the field free for people who know something. It's because of the
}morons that most physicists will not post to sci.physics for example. For
}the morons who do not know
Who are you to say they should remain silent? Even if they /are/ morons,
which blanket description I reject?
}> Some in the newsgroups believe you to be having these conversations
}> with yourself, and in truth I see how they might jump to that conclusion.
}
}So who cares. Again, they should not bother to read the messages. Simple
}mouse click solves their problem. Because you and they are clueless we
}should stop?
I am far from clueless, Dr. Sarfatti, but you are defensive nigh unto
the point of paranoia.
**I have never asked you to stop.**
}That's censorship.
That's bullshit.
}I said, my messages are casting the nets for fishes.
As I acknowledged, early in my post.
}We are looking only for a few powerful elite minds to work on important
}problems. This is not Bread and Circuses for the Rabble of Rome. Think of
}me as Coriolanus.
}
}Brush up your Shakespeare!
How presumptuous: you have not a clue as to the extent of my knowledge
of Shakespeare. As far as Roman references are concerned I am verging on
thinking of you more as Caligula. ;-)
[...]
}> }Yes, this is correct. I know many competent scientists I work with who will not
}> }use sci.physics for precisely this reason. Sci.physics.research is a clique
}> }controlled by John Baez so that is too narrow also. I continue to post to
}> }usenets for the rare intelligent person who sees through the flames of the
}> }marching morons out of "Night of The Living Dead".
}>
}> All right, I concede that yours is a valid position. I still maintain,
}> however, that there are more effective ways to disseminate your
}> information.
}
}Thank you for your concern, but you are wrong and it is none of your business.
You make it my business when you post to public fora in which I also
participate.
}Your "concern" strikes me as covert creeping censorship.
Your ideas about censorship strike me as incipent paranoia. I am not a
censor of any kind, and I work and rail against censorship of all kinds.
I have NOT in any way, shape, or form told you to stop making your posts.
What I have done is attempted to understand the motivation behind your
chosen posting style, and suggested that you interact more.
I cannot compel to to do either, nor would I.
}I shall continue to influence
}the content of the internet as I please and as I have been doing since 1993.
}The fact that my output is prolific is significant.
So you maintain, but that remains to be seen. As you yourself point out,
anyone can flood the net with information at the click of a mouse. The
worth of that information remains to be tested. If the author of the
information refuses to defend it, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the
information, but it makes it less likely that many people will care about it.
I know, I know: you don't care whether they do or not.
}This is my job. I see efn.org on your address. Is that not Mitch Kapor's
}anti-censorship group Electronic Frontier Foundation?
No, it is the Eugene Free Net.
}Strange you should be pushing to silence me.
It would be strange if I were doing that: I have told you repeatedly
that I am not. Not everyone who questions you is your enemy, Dr. Sarfatti.
I will continue to raise questions as I see fit: that is one way that
I learn.
}I have a Big Voice on the
}World Wide Web and will continue to have one.
Good for you, but we are talking about Usenet.
}> }So my posts to USENET are simple a filter operation to weed out the morons
}> }and attract a few Good Men and Women to PSI CORPS of STAR FLEET. :-)
}>
}> I also take exception to your low view of the inhabitants of Usenet,
}
}By their messages ye shall know them. I simply judge by the sample of
}messages. Most of the responders are idiots, but even if there is one good
}apple in a barrel of bad apples, that justifies the process. I hope you are
}right. So far, evidence is that you are wrong.
I concede that there are indeed idiots on the Usenet, but my experience
is that their proportion is not demonstrably greater than their proportion
in the public at large.
}> which are, after all, just a microcosm of real life. Judging the
}> majority of them to be "morons" on the basis of your past bad experience
}> with a few of them is, IMO, neither a very logical nor a very enlightened
}> view.
}
}You make to much of an off-hand remark in the process of e-mail. This is all
}Caffe talk in Bohemia.
Maybe so, but I have a feeling we're not in Bohemia anymore, Toto.
}I am not giving a Presidential State of the Union address to an August Body
}after all. Nor am I Sir Thomas Moore talking to Parliament.
}
}e.g. As in Reagan's 1986 State of the Union Address at the end where my work
}is alluded to directly because of communications set up between me and top
}people in the Reagan Whitehouse and DOD. See, e.g. "The Buttoned Down
}Bohemians" in 1986 San Francisco Sunday Magazine.
All references are apprecaited.
}> }Since many humans are stupid, mean spirited, arrogant and ignorant,
}> }hating what they cannot understand, this is a dangerous task.
}>
}> And here, it would seem, your view of Usenettians is just a microcosm
}> of your view of people in general.
}>
}> How sad.
}>
}> Not only are you likely depriving some of the very people you claim to
}> want to reach of the benefit of your knowledge and experience, but you
}> are denying yourself opportunities to learn as well.
}
}Life sucks doesn't it. :-)
It may for you. Personally, I find it interesting, and exciting, and
full of wonder.
}Surely you jest. I question your motive here. My policy has been to ignore the
}idiotic flamers.
And I have concurred with that policy.
}Also I am very busy and do not have the time to engage morons in a
}pissing contest.
How about engaging those with a legitimate interest in your work?
}I run a media corporation with significant cash flow and have more
}important things to do.
Dr. Sarfatti, this is really becoming a tired refrain. *Lots* of us
have important things to do; you are hardly unique in that regard.
}> To each his own, I suppose. Perhaps someday you'll find the time to
}> work on the "communicate" part of your tripartate epigraph.
}
}The "communicate" part is in a list not on usenet.
Ah: another piece of the puzzle is revealed.
}Go to my website below.
I have done so. I will continue to try to make sense of your posts,
though all my teaching instincts and training balk at you chosen method
of presentation. I wish you were willing to provide more, but, as you
say, that is my problem.
Carry on, Dr. Jack, carry on.
Dr H
Dr H
C+ for comprehension. You correctly note one of my statements,
but fail to respond to the implied querry in the last. Please do
try again.
Dr H
Dr H
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Lucianarchy wrote:
}Dr H wrote in message ...
}>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
}>}Lucianarchy <lu...@narchy.fsnet> wrote:
}>}
}>}The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
}>}writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
}>}in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
}>}about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
}>}dishonest, who are character assassins.
}>
}> If such is the case, it would seem that the way to foil character
}> assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
}>
}> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
}> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
}
}You hit the mail on the head!
}
}Pseudo-skeptics are only intereseted in 'challenge', not reason.
}They do this off the net as well as on.
But I'm not talking about "pseudo-skeptics", or even about skeptics,
necessarily. I'm talking about people in the newsgroup(s) who are
sincerely interested in discussion some of the issues present in
Dr. Jack's posts, *in* the newsgroup.
Assuming that every question is a "challenge" or an attack is an
oddly combative attitude.
}They 'bait' a response to a character attack, then flood the newsgroup
}or other media outlet with follow up attacks from sock-puppets and their
}legion of organised trolls. For newbies, or those unacustomed to the
}technical specifications of newsreaders, the end result is an un-readable
}newsgroup, or IOW, censorship.
While allowing that you do have a point, I stop short of calling it
"censorship". I submit that a newsgroup flooded with Dr. Jack's
discontinuous and cryptic posting is at least as unreadable to many
readers as is a group flooded by mindless flames.
Does that mean that Dr. Jack is a censor, in your view?
Dr H
Lucianarchy
No. It does, however, suggest you are trolling, or you don't
understand the usenet term of flooding, or you don't understand
the universal term of 'unreadable'.... or....
Lucianarchy
Oh dear.... <yawn >.......
Harry H Conover
:
: }First of all you are wrong. I already told you intelligent people have
: }contacted me through the years because of my usenet posts and it has led to
: }important discoveries like the IEEE prize for the development of the SAM
: }circuit.
Alright, I'll bite and reveal my ignorance. Even being an IEEE Senior
Member, I've never heard of an "IEEE prize for the development of the
SAM circuit." I've also never heard of a "SAM circuit."
I'm familiar with SAW devices, and indeed there has been IEEE recognition
show to these, but a "SAM circuit"?
Is this a real thing and if so what? Or, is this simply some more
Sarfatti posted techno-babble (which a psychiatrist would lable as
simply psychopathing "fruit"?
In my vocabulary, SAM is simply an acronym for a Surface to Air
Missile.
Have I (as a relative slow minded guy) missed something?
If so, please clue me in.
Harry C.
SerafinaDllRose
science. But from the looks of it, the topics here are a far cry from how
knowledge is acquired ... ciao!
SDR
Orange Roughy
wrote:
>All I know is that I subscribed to this newsgroup to learn something about
>science. But from the looks of it, the topics here are a far cry from how
>knowledge is acquired ... ciao!
There isn't an ounce of knowledge here. So just wait for further
instructions from the mind controllers, they'll tell you what, when, where
and how to think.
Mahipal Virdy
Dr H wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
[...]
> Copied to any particular part of Usenet, or all of it?
Would it matter?
> }The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
> }writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
> }in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
> }about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
> }dishonest, who are character assassins.
>
> If such is the case, it would seem that the way to foil character
> assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
Respectfully, you are appearing to be naive. Stop that. :-|
One can not control the actions of others -- independent of the
quality of one's character even if reflected in the contents of their
posts or the style of their hair/clothing/.../tastes. Character
Assassination is apparently a social construct that is a despicable
tact that is used daily. For example, look at how the former American
President Clinton's actions are portrayed. None of this assassination
is accidental and inadvertent. Now, apparently, if you believe the
never ending Propaganda, even Bill's Family -- by genes or even mere
marriage -- are portrayed as slime. Imagine that an entire
funded-by-our-tax-dollars-Government can be so malicious. Then they
make up polls that say the Audience is "cheering" and want more
Clinton Bashing. How does one fight back? The real worry is what the
For-Republicans-Only-Government is really trying to do while
deflecting all the Media Attention and resources to investigating
fabricated allegations. Now all Democrats are Clinton?! Extrapolate on
your own. Use fancy software modeling packages to assist if your
extrapolation, linear or non, skills are not up to par. Oh yeah, if
you defend the character of someone, then you risk being equi-shafted.
Friends of enemies are enemies no less. Do the Math. Join my Clique!
Usenet interaction is no different. Post at own risk. To a certain
unsatisfactory degree, you can control your reactions, however
difficult, given the actions of others.
> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
No. The ones standing with the last word and still continuing to kick
the assassinated Horse does not make their side any more tolerable or
acceptable just because no one replied or stood up in defense. Ever
been afraid? Ever been tired when up against insurmountable horrid
biased unfair odds?
Sorry, but there are Individuals, People, Corporations, Institutions,
and Governments that have resorted to public Character Assassination
as a valid tool of suppression. Apparently, inflicting disingenuous
shame is their weapon of choice. Society has gone amuck! For example,
of all the many contributors that post to sci.*, the New York Times
recently elected to write about one resident CrankChaser -- whose sole
reason for monitoring Usenet is to target individuals he can list on
his cranks website. There are copycats out there who yearn for similar
attention. So post at own risk even if you are naive enough to be
ignorant of the evils that lurk in the deeps of Usenet.
Remember, it's only Science if Academia says it's Science. "People are
sheep." sayeth Science.
--
Mahipal Virdy
''We search our Earth
and her limitless skies
all the while discovering
in our hearts and minds
is where heaven lies''
Dr H
Didn't think you could, but I thought I'd give you the chance.
Dr H
Dr H
No, the only thing I don't understand is your point.
I give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you
have one.
Dr H
Dr H
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}>
}> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
}[...]
}> Copied to any particular part of Usenet, or all of it?
}
}Would it matter?
Irony is not your strong point, I take it.
}> }The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
}> }writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
}> }in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
}> }about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
}> }dishonest, who are character assassins.
}>
}> If such is the case, it would seem that the way to foil character
}> assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
}
}Respectfully, you are appearing to be naive. Stop that. :-|
Sometimes the best way to seek enlightenment. :-)
}One can not control the actions of others -- independent of the
}quality of one's character even if reflected in the contents of their
}posts or the style of their hair/clothing/.../tastes. Character
}Assassination is apparently a social construct that is a despicable
}tact that is used daily. For example, look at how the former American
}President Clinton's actions are portrayed. None of this assassination
}is accidental and inadvertent. Now, apparently, if you believe the
}never ending Propaganda, even Bill's Family -- by genes or even mere
}marriage -- are portrayed as slime. Imagine that an entire
}funded-by-our-tax-dollars-Government can be so malicious. Then they
}make up polls that say the Audience is "cheering" and want more
}Clinton Bashing. How does one fight back? The real worry is what the
}For-Republicans-Only-Government is really trying to do while
}deflecting all the Media Attention and resources to investigating
}fabricated allegations. Now all Democrats are Clinton?! Extrapolate on
}your own. Use fancy software modeling packages to assist if your
}extrapolation, linear or non, skills are not up to par. Oh yeah, if
}you defend the character of someone, then you risk being equi-shafted.
}Friends of enemies are enemies no less. Do the Math. Join my Clique!
Bill Clinton was a public figure, and as such gets subjected to
public scrutiny. But even Mr. Clinton didn't choose to hang his
character out as a target by posting daily to , say, alt.republicans.
}Usenet interaction is no different. Post at own risk. To a certain
}unsatisfactory degree, you can control your reactions, however
}difficult, given the actions of others.
Well, true. But beside the immediate point: why post to a group
that one a) doesn't read or interact with; b) believes is full of
hopeless idiots, which c) are out to practice character assassination
on one? I mean, the word "masochist" comes to mind...
}> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
}> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
}
}No. The ones standing with the last word and still continuing to kick
}the assassinated Horse does not make their side any more tolerable or
}acceptable just because no one replied or stood up in defense.
Well excuse me if I'm misinterpreting, but deliberately hanging one's
ass out to be kicked, and doing nothing about it -- repeatedly --
strikes me as weird.
}Ever been afraid?
Of a Usenet post and/or interaction? No. Never.
}Ever been tired when up against insurmountable horrid biased unfair odds?
Yep. I either give it a rest and come back another day, or I find a
more congenial atmosphere and seek allies.
}Sorry, but there are Individuals, People, Corporations, Institutions,
}and Governments that have resorted to public Character Assassination
}as a valid tool of suppression. Apparently, inflicting disingenuous
}shame is their weapon of choice. Society has gone amuck! For example,
}of all the many contributors that post to sci.*, the New York Times
}recently elected to write about one resident CrankChaser -- whose sole
}reason for monitoring Usenet is to target individuals he can list on
}his cranks website.
I fail to see the problem with that. When you open you mouth, as it
were, in public, you run the risk that some people who disagree with
you will open theirs. Indeed, one of the reasons for speaking
publicly rather than privately is to flush out such people.
}There are copycats out there who yearn for similar
}attention. So post at own risk even if you are naive enough to be
}ignorant of the evils that lurk in the deeps of Usenet.
Well, I'm hardly ignorant of the so-called "evils" of Usenet, and I've
been posting at my own risk for a number of years. But I *do*
interact, and I do defend my positions, publicly.
}Remember, it's only Science if Academia says it's Science. "People are
}sheep." sayeth Science.
Say what?
Dr H
Dr H
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
}
}Dr H wrote:
}> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
}> }Dr H wrote:
}> }> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
}> }[...]
}> }> Copied to any particular part of Usenet, or all of it?
}> }
}> }Would it matter?
}>
}> Irony is not your strong point, I take it.
}
Whatever you say, boss.
}> }Respectfully, you are appearing to be naive. Stop that. :-|
}>
}> Sometimes the best way to seek enlightenment. :-)
}
}Well, entrapment is one tool to get attention. Use extremely
}sparingly.
You might want to relay that advice to the good Dr. Jack.
[snip, Bill clinton as a target for character assassination...]
}>
}> Bill Clinton was a public figure, and as such gets subjected to
}> public scrutiny. But even Mr. Clinton didn't choose to hang his
}> character out as a target by posting daily to , say, alt.republicans.
}
}Bill Clinton _is_, not was, is.
Tense correction noted and acknowledged.
}He is kind of a important individual,
}he didn't need Usenet to be a target. He's also a symbolic character
}and means different things to different individuals. Referring to his
}plight to serve as analogy to make a point is why I brought him into
}the discussion. Once you post to Usenet, you do become a somewhat
}public figure.
Even were that true I'd have to say your sense of proportion is
questionable.
But I don't necessarily agree. Some people post anonymously, some
role play, some post as multiple identities -- plenty of opportunity
for obfuscation which can substantially minimize one's degree of
public exposure as a Usenet participant.
}> }Usenet interaction is no different. Post at own risk. To a certain
}> }unsatisfactory degree, you can control your reactions, however
}> }difficult, given the actions of others.
}>
}> Well, true. But beside the immediate point: why post to a group
}> that one a) doesn't read or interact with; b) believes is full of
}> hopeless idiots, which c) are out to practice character assassination
}> on one? I mean, the word "masochist" comes to mind...
}
}A group is more a Place than a Club. It's a canvas upon which to write
}messages.
I disagree: it's a forum for discussion, not a passive bulletin
board on which to tack random tirades. At least that was once the
conception.
}The interaction of others is kind of secondary and is a
}pleasant surprise when one encounters roses amidst vast amount of
}dirt.
The interaction is primary. If no interaction is desired, why not
a web site?
}Keeping your abcs in mind: Where else to post, my friend? There's only
}one Usenet in town.
If one only want's to lecture, a web site, or a series of sites, would
seem to be a better choice. One could even post the URLs to various
newsgroups relatively unoffensively, and one need never brook any
discussion or argument.
}Having read a little bit of Jack's postings, it is clear he is a well
}educated degreed Physicist. He is difficult to follow for me but he
}does think believe he is onto something. That he chooses to post
}without interacting isn't cause for alarm.
I never said that it was. And please note, I am not suggesting that
he stop posting, by any means. I am just questioning the motivation
which drives him to use a particular medium while eschewing most of
the benefits that medium has to offer.
}> }> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
}> }> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
}> }
}> }No. The ones standing with the last word and still continuing to kick
}> }the assassinated Horse does not make their side any more tolerable or
}> }acceptable just because no one replied or stood up in defense.
}>
}> Well excuse me if I'm misinterpreting, but deliberately hanging one's
}> ass out to be kicked, and doing nothing about it -- repeatedly --
}> strikes me as weird.
}
}Dr. H, you have already misinterpreted thinking I'm ironically
}challenged. No one really is posting to Usenet to be kicked. They get
}kicked by losers who have nothing of their own to call accomplishment
}than the mere position that they themselves are not "cranks" because
}they have nothing new unique, be it creative or not, to share. To call
}their own.
Dr. Sarfatti's posts, for the most part, consists of extracts of
conversations with other people who are also not participating in
the newsgroups he posts to. They lack the context necessary to
make them intelligible as anything other than egotistical rants.
I believe the good Dr. has more to offer that that, but apparently
he doesn't the inhabitants of the neighborhoods he chooses to preach
in to his liking.
}> }Ever been afraid?
}>
}> Of a Usenet post and/or interaction? No. Never.
}
}Dr. H, have you a real fullname?
Hiawtha -- it's in the header to all my posts.
}An alma mater?
Several, as it happens.
}I think you're disingenuous about your fear, hiding behind an anonymous
}string. [If that _is_ your name, I apologize in advance for not believing
}it.]
Apology accepted; that sort of mistake is not infrequent.
}Ultimately it's not the posts to fear, it's the mindset behind the
}posts. My fear question was not limited to Usenet interaction or lack
}thereof. Just generic natural fear. Think beyond the words before our
}eyes.
Fear of what? That someone on Usenet is going to stalk me for my
beliefs? Well, they've had plenty of opportunity since I've been
around for well over a decade. Also plenty of motivation, I suppose,
since I am not shy about expressing my opinions and I have pissed a
lot of people off. Still, hasn't happened yet.
And plenty of people /off/ Usenet could chose to do me harm if they
were so inclined, and probably have an easier time of it. If you
are suggesting that Dr. Jack is carrying this sort of paranoia, and
that it explains his disinclination to interact, then why does he
bother to post at all? Much safer to not, don't you think?
}> }Ever been tired when up against insurmountable horrid biased unfair odds?
}>
}> Yep. I either give it a rest and come back another day, or I find a
}> more congenial atmosphere and seek allies.
}
}How successful has that been? One can not walk away from a Usenet
}argument. The Fighters never leave, they age around you.
Heh, you have a point. But I believe in the long term efficacy of
conviction and persistence. Perhaps there is something of that in
Dr. Jack's dogged posting of snippets of unrelated conversations
salted with chunks of unrelated series of equations. I still maintain
that discussion conveys more information than pontification, and
interaction educates better than lecturing.
But maybe that's just me.
}> }Sorry, but there are Individuals, People, Corporations, Institutions,
}> }and Governments that have resorted to public Character Assassination
}> }as a valid tool of suppression. Apparently, inflicting disingenuous
}> }shame is their weapon of choice. Society has gone amuck! For example,
}> }of all the many contributors that post to sci.*, the New York Times
}> }recently elected to write about one resident CrankChaser -- whose sole
}> }reason for monitoring Usenet is to target individuals he can list on
}> }his cranks website.
}>
}> I fail to see the problem with that. When you open you mouth, as it
}> were, in public, you run the risk that some people who disagree with
}> you will open theirs. Indeed, one of the reasons for speaking
}> publicly rather than privately is to flush out such people.
}
}You fail to see the problem with that Dr. and you're encouraging such
}behavior?! You want a grade? F for Fail then. That you think there's
}nothing wrong with being a CrankChaser, while unapologetically falsely
}accusing many free, innovative, or creative thinkers, and turning a
}deaf ear to their motivations and reasons, earns you closer to an F++.
Gee, I'm improving. Who says he has to respond to 'CrankChasers'?
What about people with a legitimate interest in what he's trying to
say, who would like to have an /open/ discussion, and not a semi-private
guru/ disciple relationship?
}> }Remember, it's only Science if Academia says it's Science. "People are
}> }sheep." sayeth Science.
}>
}> Say what?
}
}Follow my post. It's actually subtle because many a Academic has done
}nothing more than mock Usenet Interactors by creating the public image
}facade of how a waste of mind Usenet is when it comes to getting to
}the Science. The statement was meant to make one think, even me.
Anyone who takes Usenet as their sole source of information is, IMO,
a fool. OTOH, to assume that there is nothing of value to be had
from Usenet interaction is equally foolish.
One of my points is that one *chooses* with whom one interacts on Usenet.
If one doesn't like someone's attitude, or style, or politics, one simply
ignores them. But Dr. Jack has taken this to the logical extreme by
choosing to ignore *everyone*.
It is difficult not to see such behavior as either an exercise in futility,
or some self-agrandizing Sisyphean fantasy.
But maybe that's just me.
Dr H
Mahipal Virdy
Dr H wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Mahipal Virdy wrote:
> }
> }Dr H wrote:
> }>
> }> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, DanKettler wrote:
> }[...]
> }> Copied to any particular part of Usenet, or all of it?
> }
> }Would it matter?
>
> Irony is not your strong point, I take it.
If you take it, if you can think it, then it must be so.
> }> }The writing to USENET that Dr. Jack Sarfatti was allegedly
> }> }writing such because of disagreement with their views, was,
> }> }in my opinion, incorrect. He is writing this, in my opinion,
> }> }about those of low character -- extremly unethical and
> }> }dishonest, who are character assassins.
> }>
> }> If such is the case, it would seem that the way to foil character
> }> assassins would be to not give them a character to assassinate.
> }
> }Respectfully, you are appearing to be naive. Stop that. :-|
>
> Sometimes the best way to seek enlightenment. :-)
Well, entrapment is one tool to get attention. Use extremely
sparingly.
> }One can not control the actions of others -- independent of the
> }quality of one's character even if reflected in the contents of their
> }posts or the style of their hair/clothing/.../tastes. Character
> }Assassination is apparently a social construct that is a despicable
> }tact that is used daily. For example, look at how the former American
> }President Clinton's actions are portrayed. None of this assassination
> }is accidental and inadvertent. Now, apparently, if you believe the
> }never ending Propaganda, even Bill's Family -- by genes or even mere
> }marriage -- are portrayed as slime. Imagine that an entire
> }funded-by-our-tax-dollars-Government can be so malicious. Then they
> }make up polls that say the Audience is "cheering" and want more
> }Clinton Bashing. How does one fight back? The real worry is what the
> }For-Republicans-Only-Government is really trying to do while
> }deflecting all the Media Attention and resources to investigating
> }fabricated allegations. Now all Democrats are Clinton?! Extrapolate on
> }your own. Use fancy software modeling packages to assist if your
> }extrapolation, linear or non, skills are not up to par. Oh yeah, if
> }you defend the character of someone, then you risk being equi-shafted.
> }Friends of enemies are enemies no less. Do the Math. Join my Clique!
>
> Bill Clinton was a public figure, and as such gets subjected to
> public scrutiny. But even Mr. Clinton didn't choose to hang his
> character out as a target by posting daily to , say, alt.republicans.
Bill Clinton _is_, not was, is. He is kind of a important individual,
he didn't need Usenet to be a target. He's also a symbolic character
and means different things to different individuals. Referring to his
plight to serve as analogy to make a point is why I brought him into
the discussion. Once you post to Usenet, you do become a somewhat
public figure.
> }Usenet interaction is no different. Post at own risk. To a certain
> }unsatisfactory degree, you can control your reactions, however
> }difficult, given the actions of others.
>
> Well, true. But beside the immediate point: why post to a group
> that one a) doesn't read or interact with; b) believes is full of
> hopeless idiots, which c) are out to practice character assassination
> on one? I mean, the word "masochist" comes to mind...
A group is more a Place than a Club. It's a canvas upon which to write
messages. The interaction of others is kind of secondary and is a
pleasant surprise when one encounters roses amidst vast amount of
dirt.
Keeping your abcs in mind: Where else to post, my friend? There's only
one Usenet in town.
Having read a little bit of Jack's postings, it is clear he is a well
educated degreed Physicist. He is difficult to follow for me but he
does think believe he is onto something. That he chooses to post
without interacting isn't cause for alarm.
> }> Continuing to post, but not to reply to responses, allows character
> }> assassins to present their side of things unchallenged, no?
> }
> }No. The ones standing with the last word and still continuing to kick
> }the assassinated Horse does not make their side any more tolerable or
> }acceptable just because no one replied or stood up in defense.
>
> Well excuse me if I'm misinterpreting, but deliberately hanging one's
> ass out to be kicked, and doing nothing about it -- repeatedly --
> strikes me as weird.
Dr. H, you have already misinterpreted thinking I'm ironically
challenged. No one really is posting to Usenet to be kicked. They get
kicked by losers who have nothing of their own to call accomplishment
than the mere position that they themselves are not "cranks" because
they have nothing new unique, be it creative or not, to share. To call
their own.
> }Ever been afraid?
>
> Of a Usenet post and/or interaction? No. Never.
Dr. H, have you a real fullname? An alma mater? I think you're
disingenuous about your fear, hiding behind an anonymous string. [If
that _is_ your name, I apologize in advance for not believing it.]
Ultimately it's not the posts to fear, it's the mindset behind the
posts. My fear question was not limited to Usenet interaction or lack
thereof. Just generic natural fear. Think beyond the words before our
eyes.
> }Ever been tired when up against insurmountable horrid biased unfair odds?
>
> Yep. I either give it a rest and come back another day, or I find a
> more congenial atmosphere and seek allies.
How successful has that been? One can not walk away from a Usenet
argument. The Fighters never leave, they age around you.
> }Sorry, but there are Individuals, People, Corporations, Institutions,
> }and Governments that have resorted to public Character Assassination
> }as a valid tool of suppression. Apparently, inflicting disingenuous
> }shame is their weapon of choice. Society has gone amuck! For example,
> }of all the many contributors that post to sci.*, the New York Times
> }recently elected to write about one resident CrankChaser -- whose sole
> }reason for monitoring Usenet is to target individuals he can list on
> }his cranks website.
>
> I fail to see the problem with that. When you open you mouth, as it
> were, in public, you run the risk that some people who disagree with
> you will open theirs. Indeed, one of the reasons for speaking
> publicly rather than privately is to flush out such people.
You fail to see the problem with that Dr. and you're encouraging such
behavior?! You want a grade? F for Fail then. That you think there's
nothing wrong with being a CrankChaser, while unapologetically falsely
accusing many free, innovative, or creative thinkers, and turning a
deaf ear to their motivations and reasons, earns you closer to an F++.
Btw, annoying repeat posters are not worthy of the label "Crank". It's
a pity that imbeciles misuse that label as it was meant to have a
Scientific Context when applied appropriately.
> }There are copycats out there who yearn for similar
> }attention. So post at own risk even if you are naive enough to be
> }ignorant of the evils that lurk in the deeps of Usenet.
>
> Well, I'm hardly ignorant of the so-called "evils" of Usenet, and I've
> been posting at my own risk for a number of years. But I *do*
> interact, and I do defend my positions, publicly.
>
> }Remember, it's only Science if Academia says it's Science. "People are
> }sheep." sayeth Science.
>
> Say what?
Follow my post. It's actually subtle because many a Academic has done
nothing more than mock Usenet Interactors by creating the public image
facade of how a waste of mind Usenet is when it comes to getting to
the Science. The statement was meant to make one think, even me.
--
Pete Charest
news:3AB171F1...@ex-pressnet.com...
>
>
> Having read a little bit of Jack's postings, it is clear he is a well
> educated degreed Physicist. He is difficult to follow for me but he
Dr. Jack is a buffoon. He is well known because his drivel is
ubiquitous. He is difficult to follow for anybody. Not because of his
intelligence, but because of his obfuscations. He strings scientific
buzz words together well enough to impress the gullible.
> does think believe he is onto something. That he chooses to post
> without interacting isn't cause for alarm.
That's it exactly...He "thinks" he is onto something. He is a windbag
full of big words.
Sir Lou
> A group is more a Place than a Club. It's a canvas upon which to write
> messages. The interaction of others is kind of secondary and is a
> pleasant surprise when one encounters roses amidst vast amount of
> dirt.
Well here comes a little dirt, dothead
> Having read a little bit of Jack's postings, it is clear he is a well
> educated degreed Physicist. He is difficult to follow for me but he
> does think believe he is onto something.
Dr. Jack is an idiot. The only thing he's "onto" is the gold rush of suckers
like you
>That he chooses to post without interacting isn't cause for alarm.
His positions are indefenseible, this is the reason he does not interact.
IE: He's a pussy