RE: Tesla the man [comments on what is appropriate]

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "alfred erpel" <alfred@xxxxxxxxx>


Bill and All,

        Comments interspersed below.


Al Erpel
USA, PA, 18901


[some true stuff snipped ]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:29 PM
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Tesla the man
>
> Original poster: William Beaty <billb@xxxxxxxxxx>

>Exactly.  Unfortunately, this topic is semi-banned on pupman.
>By "semi-banned," I mean that it is tolerated only,
>and can be shut down at any time.

This is a good thing.  This (and any) topic is shut down when there starts
to be repetition and no content and/or just nutball wishful thinking and
repetitive groundless speculative comments (don't take this personally, I
haven't called you a nutball). I sure hope you don't think that the
moderator would shut down this topic (wireless power transmission by tesla
coil) if something of substance and science was being presented; what else
could you mean?.  This list is full of useful information because of the
moderation and ONLY because of the moderation, otherwise it would be like
every other unmoderated USENET science group.


>  As a result, no amateur science types would even think of using
> this forum for a research discussion.

 I can't believe that YOU believe what you typed above.  This group has the
highest ratio of amateur and professional science people I have ever
witnessed (thanks to being moderated).  Pardon me if I don't understand what
"research discussion" in the context of this group means.  You obviously are
aware of the charter of the group; should biology be discussed here?


>In academia, censorship
>is a high crime.  Completely unforgivable.  It's also a prime
>symptom of the pseudoscientist.  Pseudoscientists cannot tolerate
>information which points out the flaws in their rigid belief
>systems.  Professional scientists on the other hand welcome
>"blasphemies," since they *want* to find such flaws, and that's
>one reason why they find the "suppression of dissenting opinion"
>to be so abhorrant.

        Yes. Yes. Yes.  True. True. True.  Just like every other time
you've said it or variations on the theme here.  So I guess you are implying
censorship and/or pseudoscientism here.  Or are you just taking another
opportunity to sing your hackneyed theme to the choir once again?  Total
non-sequitur?  Or a fourth choice I missed?
        I don't understand why you continuously preach to the choir.  If I
verbalized a speculation as to why you have this obsession it could be
construed as a flame.  Would not your inexhaustable exhortations on this
topic not be much better directed at venues where the problem lies?


>What we really need is a "Tesla science" forum for those interested
>in genuine research.  Perhaps one with zero-tolerance rules against
>flamewars, but with the usual attitude of the professional
>scientist:
>freedom of expression; no limits on topics whatsoever.


        Perhaps you could start your own 'unbanned topic and content except
for flames' for the people on this list and everywhere who are interested in
"genuine research" on your website www.amasci.com where you can control the
content and we can all have "what we really need".