From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:08:35 AM
Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for
deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science
I did not know there is an article
Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science
I did not know there is an article on this. I consider this good news.
Wikipedia is a travesty. The less there is about cold
Jed san,
In Japanese wikipedia, the following entries about LENR were added on March
2013.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
Wikipedia: The dictionary of indefatigable points of view.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for
deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
At 11:06 AM 9/13/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
It survived deletion, despite complaints that:
Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here:
(vortex)
which seems to
2012/9/12 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies.
maybe the solution would be simply to make a quick article on wikipedia
explaining the controversies, and giving references to different point of
view.
that was the initial way
I went with a non-snarky fairly neutral wait and see
response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)#Energy_Catalyzer
Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media
attention, there is sufficient
Non-WP:RS
evidence that things
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the
articles is a treasure trove.
T
covered.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base at the bottom of the
articles is a treasure trove.
T
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
about in the last ten or so years.
The Model T Ford was also incredible. It was wonderful breakthrough
At 10:04 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You do not need to satisfy people. You need to
report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of
the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.
That
refer-a-pedia
wiki-ference
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree Eric; but, I use wikipedia a little differently from most. I
use it as a reference source, rarely quoting wiki together because the
truth is volatile there; but, the reference base
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
harry
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, Wikipedia is good for some things
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
I do not think that will happen. The Wikipedia management would not agree.
I do
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps all the very controversial subjects from the current wikipedia
should be removed and placed in a distinct wikipedia dedicated to very
controversial subjects.
I do
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I think contributors to a controversial subject must self-identify as
either pro or con. That way readers can *immediately* see from the
user name on which side of the controversy each contributor stands.
Exactly. To simplify: Just have signed
I wrote:
If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach
a compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and
only one article per topic
wikipedia-like.
Wikiliberal (for liberal economics, not US liberal...)
some green wiki
...
We have set a wiki on lenrnews, but we don't have much resource to feed
it...
I just wood like to have basic information, description of various point of
view , even if negative, with arguments.
anyway
in fact I've heard of wikipedia spitrit in the old time :
it was to express reasonable opinion, all reasonable opinions, with
reference data, show controversies, ...
but on some subject I follow I've see that peer-reviewed but non mainstream
point of view get thrown out by ideological non
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by
supporters, and one by opponents. Why not?
This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a
compromise taking
difficulty with cold
fusion is, that it is very difficult to evaluate the reliability of sources.
I think that your criticism about wikipedia is disproportional. Controversial
subjects are not that important, because usually there are very good reasons
why they are controversial. Wikipedia is just
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with
common sense or for non-controversial articles.
For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that
they have to protect the article from evil POV pushers. They have a
mission: Wikipedia must not expound fringe
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
No, I hope it withers away.
I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking
that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come
about in the last ten or so years.
Obviously
bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global
scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate
science.
Is'nt climategate officially a non-event, especially on Wikipedia ? yet
it's content is confirmed by the authors, and there was clear manipulation
of peer-review
On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics.
Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and do
the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells this
You want to test the Hydrobetatron/Athanor ?
as Jed repeated, good LENR experiment are expensive, and the calorimetry is
so difficult that many mainstream team failed even to make good enough one.
Few researchers have really tested the LENR, and now they are believers,
thus nobody trust them.
for deletion then a new page will be opened up for
discussion (though not for formal voting -- I'm not sure who decides
what the consensus is).
Last time I argued against deletion -- this time I will support it.
Deletion is very unlikely, there is too much Reliable Source. Don't
confuse Wikipedia
The page is up for formal deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer_(2nd_nomination)
I haven't decided yet whether to vote for Delete or Keep. I'll
probably go with a snarky Keep.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, an expert in Wikipedia, wrote
descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are
great, then he says they are not followed:
If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware
that it can be an abusive
At 06:01 PM 9/9/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
What comes to cold fusion, there are no
established scientific point of view, therefore
it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia
article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone.
Actually, there is. The claim Jouni makes is one
in mainstream
journals. This is the definition of an
established scientific point of view. There is no other definition.
These facts constitute overwhelming evidence
that the effect is real. The people at
Wikipedia, at Sci. Am. and elsewhere have
replaced this standard with a set of rumors
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia but found
it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there are some very
tennatious editiors that really, really don't like cold fusion articles in any
way shape or form. Their obnoxious behavior have driven off
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious editiors that really, really don't like
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
The talk page isn't the place to vote. If it comes up for a formal request
for deletion then a new page will be opened up for
On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
Some time back I fought the battle of the E-Cat article on Wikipedia
but found it too frustrating and in the end even enfuriating as there
are some very tennatious
@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its
truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page.
The talk page
- Original Message -
From: MJ feli...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion
On 09-Sep-12 15:36, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:31:22 AM
I think it is best to delete the article. I wish they would delete the
article on cold fusion.
Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the
structure and guiding philosophy.
- Jed
Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
edits doesn't disappear.
A big part of my motivation in suggesting the use of Wikipedia as the basis
for the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was the
virulence of the editors of Wikipedia needs
yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...
same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults
2012/9/9 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
Part of the value of keeping an article from deletion is the history of
edits doesn't disappear.
A big part of my motivation
I have been meaning to ask about this! I will start a separate thread.
Jeff
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
yes we should keep archive, for a future Nuremberg Trial on Wikipedia...
same for peer-review, magazines, and other insults
2012/9/9 James
The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has
not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other
hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he
is committing massive fraud.
There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia
, there is. It is the set of facts in the peer-reviewed literature
published in mainstream journals. This is the definition of an established
scientific point of view. There is no other definition.
These facts constitute overwhelming evidence that the effect is real. The
people at Wikipedia, at Sci. Am
Luigi Versaggi
September 8th, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Congratulations for the Zurich E-CAT Conference.
I suppose this time the main stream media cannot ignore the facts.
We must thank you, the world must thank you.
Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Dear Luigi Versaggi:
The main stream media
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated,
peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest.
That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed.
*Correlation of excess
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the
replication of the data?
There have been only a few replications in Italy, at SRI and elsewhere
because the experiment is expensive and time consuming, and there is no
money to
On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people
opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let
politics dictate what we believe.
I did not say that. I just said how science
If anyone is sitting on their hands, and is looking for a challenge, it may be
time to begin construction on a Wikipedia entry for Defkalion Green
Technologies. Such an entry needs to be entirely confined to reliable sources
(e.g., Republic of Greece, Government Gazette, 4 April 2011; Greek
Brian Josephson reports:
According to infallible Wikipedia:
The Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks issued the patent for
the invention on 6 April 2011
Eccellente! Bravissimo! (how come we didn't hear about it earlier?)
- Jed
See:
http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_unoid=1610895table=Invention#ancoraSearch
http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_unoid=1610895table=Invention#ancoraSearch
This might not be the patent for the catalysts.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 8:23:19 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Wikipedia: Rossi granted patent
Brian Josephson reports:
According to infallible Wikipedia
I shouldn't, but I do sometimes read the discussions in the Wikipedia
article on the Rossi device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_CatalyzerThis article is holding up
remarkably well. The skeptics will gut it or delete it sooner or later
shouldn't, but I do sometimes read the discussions in the Wikipedia
article on the Rossi device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_CatalyzerThis article is holding up
remarkably well. The skeptics will gut it or delete it sooner or later
Someone named TenOfAllTrades deleted my remarks, with a comment rv,
banned User:JedRothwell
That's probably good for me. It will prevent me from wasting any more
time posting message there.
- Jed
Jed sez:
Someone named TenOfAllTrades deleted my remarks, with a comment rv, banned
User:JedRothwell
That's probably good for me. It will prevent me from wasting any more time
posting message there.
Someone unknowingly has just paid you a very high complement. You know
better than to stick
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
You may suddenly discover the fact
that you have performed your librarian duties so well that you've
actually put yourself out of a job!
Nothing would please me more. It would be like winning a
Italian version:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi
(Both the English and Italian articles generated links to LENR-CANR.org.)
- Jed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
From Esa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Succinct, and to the point.
I wonder how long it will take before the anti-CF police take notice
and proceed to correct it.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
At 03:23 PM 2/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if
the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an
excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity.
In a way, this is correct. Wikipedia did classify Cold fusion
Abd sez:
...
It means nothing about the science itself. As Jed has pointed out, there is
a definition of mainstream that's different. Judging mainstream has to
do with publication by independent publishers who are dedicated to general
science or to some particular science (or engineering.)
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no mathematical definition of fringe.
There is, however, a conventional definition of what constitutes mainstream
science. It calls for professional scientists, replication, peer-review, a
high s/n ratio and various other things.
(for
this argument) if they are wrong about cold fusion or not; their perception
of it defines it as fringe. It is one of 3 examples of contemporary fringe
science on the Wikipedia entry on the subject. And whatever one thinks of
Wikipedia, it can’t be denied that this indicates
thinks. Wikipedia or the New York Times
are the arbiters. When we talk about calorimetry or tritium, opinions don't
count. The majority view itself may be fringe, even though that seems
contradictory. The existing corpus of knowledge described in the textbooks
sets the standard. Quantitative measurements
There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the
majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool
for judging such mass subjectivity.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:29, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me add
davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
*Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined
Hi
Ain't I right
...@gmail.com
mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
*Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined
Hi
Ain't I right?
http
Hi
Ain't I right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
Sidereal period should be used and not solar.
Do you support a change?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
David
David Jonsson, Sweden,
Is this the right link?
Harry
From: David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
Subject: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined
Hi
Ain't I right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity
:* Tue, January 11, 2011 3:47:23 PM
*Subject:* [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined
Hi
Ain't I right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standard_gravity#effect_of_centripetal_acceleration
Sidereal period should be used and not solar.
Do you support a change?
http://en.wikipedia.org
At 05:55 PM 9/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be
permanent this time.
Abd, who never learns? Come on, Jed, that's
At 05:55 PM 9/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be
permanent this time.
Abd, who never learns? Come on, Jed, that's
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Abd, who never learns? Come on, Jed, that's exactly what they are saying
about me on Wikipedia.
Ah, but I was kidding. Maybe.
- Jed
Abd, who never learns, is making waves at Wikipedia again. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion
I predict they will throw him out again within 2 weeks. It will be
permanent this time.
I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article. It is even worse than I
recall. There is a new
From dailygrail.com:
Quote of the Day:
To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly
counteracts the depressing revelations of truth.
H. P. Lovecraft
T
Title: Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source
Begins with:
Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will
immediately launch into a rant about how the massively collaborative
online encyclopedia can't be trusted. It can, you
Some Wikipedia articles are better than others. The format is good
for some subject areas, but not so good for others. I think
controversial subjects that call for expert knowledge probably fare
worst. Especially subjects that attract self-appointed experts. That
also happens in the science
At 10:27 AM 3/16/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Title: Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source
Begins with:
Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will
immediately launch into a rant about how the massively
Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of
proof'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
About 4/5s the way down the page.
Examples in science
As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional
knowledge a claim
appears, the
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of
proof'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
About 4/5s the way down the page.
Examples in science
As a general rule, the
At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden
of proof'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
About 4/5s the way down the page.
Examples in science
As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within
On 01/05/2010 04:57 PM, Steven Krivit wrote:
At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and
'burden of proof'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
About 4/5s the way down the page.
Examples in science
As a general rule,
From Stephen:
The theory of cold fusion would be a theory explaining
how such nuclei join, not simply the assertion that they do
join. The assertion that fusion happens at room temperature
is a simple binary statement, and is either true or false;
it's quite different from what is meant by
another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...
At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote:
Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of
proof'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
About 4/5s the way down the page.
Examples in science
As a general rule, the less
Wikipedia loses thousands of editors
http://news.techworld.com/networking/3207443/wikipedia-loses-thousands-of-ed
itors/?
http://tinyurl.com/yh6s8dj
Excerpt:
The staggering loss of editors from the user-generated site
was reported by Felipe Ortega from the Universidad Rey Juan
Carlos
Steven Krivit wrote:
Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about
publishing the document before I had done so.
Ha! That's proper form.
She did not have a problem with me publishing it . . .
Yes. She didn't object after I told her about my copy either. Apparently
At 07:26 AM 11/21/2009, you wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about
publishing the document before I had done so.
Ha! That's proper form.
Uncharacteristic, I realize. But it was not necessary. She had already
written to people
The hilarity continues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coppertwigdiff=nextoldid=326828319
::P.S. Think about it. If cold fusion had any remote possibility of
working, would the DIA be releasing this publicly, so that foreign
governments could read it and start putting
Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about
publishing the document before I had done so. She did not have a problem
with me publishing it and she even gave me some suggestions as to how I
could find a copy. Very nice lady.
At 11:09 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote:
Steven
, November 19, 2009 1:27:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
endless fun. where's my rubber mallet so i can hit my forehead with it
continuously
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In a way, ya
the wind  :_)
-Fran
- Original Message -
From: Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:27:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
endless fun. where's my rubber mallet so i
before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would
never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:
[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
unless
the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:
[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
unless they are adressed by secondary sources.
He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.
The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss
papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics
would
never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte
wrote:
[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
Jed sez:
...
It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on
Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you
think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?
I presume not! ;-)
...but that does not answer the principal question:
the authors, I guess.
I am sure of the pedigree because the authors sent me the document.
If you (or the skeptics at Wikipedia) are not sure of the pedigree, I
suggest y'all ignore the document. It is not all that important. I
mean, it is a fine job and I am glad they wrote it, but there is
nothing
systematically sent this faked
DIA document in a sinister plan to discredit the field of research. Of
course, the belief in such conspiracies runs rampant within certain
sectors of the UFO community.
If you (or the skeptics at Wikipedia) are not sure of the pedigree,
Just to be clear on this point, I wish
this
is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never allow a
link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my copy
(Wikipedia automatically rejects links to LENR-CANR.org) and they
wouldn't want to link to Krivit's copy.
The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit
Jed sez:
(By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format.
A shame.)
Another fine example of our tax dollars working for our benefit!
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Thanks Jed for the clarification.
There's a new comment by V now on wikipedia, stating that
public(unclassified) documents are, erm, public. So, no take down is
legally enforceable.
And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents
which are unclassified, but not published
101 - 200 of 351 matches
Mail list logo
