> Jones wrote: > > This may sound a bit cynical and/or paranoid, but it would not > surprise me if some of the inordinate amount of disinformation out > there was being promoted by special interests. Look at Chevron's > books close enough, and you just might may see big payments to the > Reich institute, or cases of Foster's fine brew being sent over to > Joe and his pals, etc...<g> Sorry Patrick, one has to draw the > line somewhere, and for me it is above 'orgone' and about 2/3 of > Joe's B.S.... but then again, that appraisal may change tomorrow, > with even the tiniest bit of proof.
Jones, I find the negative connotations - from a 'hard' science perspective - of the use of that particular label quite intriguing. Only a matter of a few weeks ago you were speculating here about muons, and there has also been some debate (not enough, IMHO) about hydrinos. I presume that such theories - rooted as they are, at least partly, in accepted science - provoke less consternation than talking about 'orgone', with all of it's associated baggage. I recognise that I too slightly recoil when I see such words. However, let's remember that it's the phenomenon that we are interested in, not how we label it. As Alex Schiffer says in the update to 'The Experimenters Guide to the Joe Cell', immediately after he discusses muons and hydrinos as possible explanations (!), "Again dear friends we are calling the same rose by a different name. At the end of the day it does not matter in the least as to what the name of the force is as long as we know its cause and not just use the effect as we have been doing." Let's concentrate on understanding the force - we can come up with a more 'acceptable' name for it later. Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 01/06/2006
