[NPA Chat] Fw: NPA 2012

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Beck

unread,
Feb 10, 2012, 10:34:37 AM2/10/12
to NPA Members Chat Email
Any views?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: NPA 2012

Dear Greg,
 
It is clear that you are not looking carefully enough at documents which YOU send nor those that I send.
 
It is a huge injustice and totally contrary to NPA ideals that you and David should say this.  And it is HUGELY insensitive of you to say, "Otherwise, you’ll have to live with what’s done" when I have just reminded you that I have been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
 
For goodness sake man, I have only recently sent you a pdf of my paper for this year in double column format.  It has just occured to me that perhaps you did not even read my email to David, nor the ABSTRACT that may be the source of confusion here. Did you not even read that to the end to see that it was just the ABSTRACT that David had requested.
 
Your hypocracy is mind boggling.  You have the incredible audacity to suggest that I need to take more care!  I sir, put myself though much pain to make sure that my paper was error free; you changed that without telling me, messing up the references.  You also changed my acknowledgements for a second time, but this time without giving me any say in the matter. 
 
Sir, you are guilty of incompetance and turning editing into censorship. 
 
Kindly apologise, and I hope that you will reflect on the dangers of power corrupting very objective of the NPA.  You are being unfair because you do not like science that may prove you wrong.  For your own sake, look at what the misuse of power and concealment of truth is doing to humanity.  Even the current Pope acknowledges that evil has infiltrated the Catholic Church through its error of trying to keep things secret.  I try to bring God's truth that could save HUGE suffering.  All those who read this, please know that I say this in love:  you are in great danger because you are unwittingly becoming instruments of similar evil in science. 
 
I have given you evidence in abundance that God reveals truth, that is what you hate, and that hate puts your souls in great danger.  PLEASE try to trust me.  I am trying to help you all, and time for all of us may be running out.
 
Bob Beck 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Volk
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: NPA 2012

Dear Robert,
 
Though David advised me not to waste any more time with you, I will make one last attempt to help you see what’s going on.  I’ve told you this before, but you refuse to listen.
 
The paper you attached is in the WRONG FORMAT!  It’s not even double column.  It takes time (that I don’t have) to put it in the RIGHT FORMAT.  I don’t care about content if it the format is wrong.  Do you understand?
 
If you edit the final versions I sent without screwing up the format, I will update the online versions and future copies of the proceedings.  Otherwise, you’ll have to live with what’s done.
 
Format is just as important as content.  Am I being unclear in any way?
 
I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding the Bennett and Bligh papers.
 
Kind regards,
 
Greg
 
 
Dear David and other senior NPA members,
 
Since no one else seems to have the conscience to propose an equitable solution to the fact that Greg messed up not just my paper of last year, but those of Robert Bennett and Bernard R. Bligh also in Section 02 036-068 Assis-Borchardt of the proceedings, I shall try.
 
If Robert Bennett and Bernard R. Bligh agree, and Greg can live with the mess he has made of it, I am happy save the NPA the cost of altering that part of the proceedings in exchange for two things.
 
The first is that the version of my paper, that my Wife and I went to great lengths, while I was in pain, to ensure was free from errors, appears on the NPA website rather than the one that contains errors introduced by changes that Greg did not seek my agreement to.  I attach the version now that I told Greg on 14th April 2011 had been carefully checked for errors.
 
The second is that by way of compensation, and in recognition of the fact that I am telling you now that my financial hardship is real, and not just an excuse, that you waive my membership fee for this year. 
 
In May this year, God willing, I will turn 65 so if you are willing to work on the basis that my membership cost for papers submitted for this years conference is the seniors figure, then you would be trading the cost and effort of reprinting part of the proceeding for $15.  Of course, if Robert Bennett and Bernard R. Bligh insist that the errors relating to them are corrected, then I would expect the opportunity for my paper to be corrected be taken.  
 
My financial situation will become less severe on my birthday, as I am entitled to a state pension (not a great deal because another benefit will be cut).  So it is my intention to pay the printing costs of this years paper.  But please remember that I have recently been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer, meaning that it has spread to bones and other organs.  God told me 30 years ago (via my interpretation of a dream) that I may die before my 65th birthday, but I have reasons to think that God may now have reasons for letting me live longer for some purpose.  The prophesy was on public record in the autobiography on my website long before I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and it was written long before I noticed any prostate problem.
 
I have also attached a Word version of my abstract.
 
I will NOT allow Greg access to a Word version of my paper until I personally have incorporated suggested changes that I am happy to make.  All suggestions will be considered carefully as last year, but we are dealing with completely new ideas in physics, so Greg should respect the fact that the author of those ideas should know best how to convey them most clearly.  That is not to say that advice from Greg or others may not be helpful.  I am already anticipating further references that Greg may suggest near the end, where I was a little casual through desire to finish the paper before pain sets in again.
 
Best regards,
 
Bob Beck
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: NPA 2012
 
Robert:
 
Thanks for inquiring about the submission.
 
We welcome everyone to submit their papers who are NPA members.
 
We need to have your membership paid to go forward.  Membership is $30 per year, $15 for seniors  or students on a budget.
 
We also need your abstract in word format.
 
But to start, we need you to pay your membership dues.

You can do so by going to this webpage:
 
 
Thanks!
 
----------------------------------
 
David de Hilster
Webmaster
Natural Philosophy Alliance
 
 
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Dear NPA colleagues,
 
In putting together a paper for this year, I was surprised to find that nobody put me right about the criticsism contained in my open letter of September, because it appears that my paper of last year WAS included in the proceedings.
 
I am, of course, pleased about that, not only for myself, but because Greg Volk had put in a lot of effort in helping me structure the paper and sort the references out.
 
But dear Greg, it does look like after all that effort, you may have taken that intended help too far, because I was hugely disappointed to find that (correct me if I am wrong) presumably you applied what you thought was further correction after our consultation had ended.  The paper as finally agreed between us contained 30 references.  According to the version now on the NPA website it only has 29, and the deletion attributes references incorrectly.
 
Knowing the pressure that Greg was under, any error is understandable, but not covering the possibility by telling me of the change.  I am willing to forgive that if all recipients of this email will forgive any unjustified remarks in my open letter, bearing in mind my state of health then and now.
 
Thanks to Greg's help last year, I am hopeful that the paper attached for initial consideration in pdf form should be acceptable as it stands.  It is submitted as pdf initially as it is over 2.5MB in Word form (not because of length!)  because of one drawing from my book which had to be created larger and with much detail originally to make it clear.  I can submit in Word form via a 'Dropbox' if 2.5MB is to large for the email recipient.
 
I have been able to include some explanations not contained in my book and previous papers following some further reading of my Daughter's particle physics textbook (Martin & Shaw).  Any views on this paper are most welcome, whether or not it is accepted.  I am hopeful that those of you interested in particle physics, who may not have had time to look at my book and first paper, will find the attached thought provoking via the number of possible explanations it provides.
 
Best regards,
 
Bob Beck
 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages