I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l.
To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: >From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: "BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is" where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: > "There is no better argument for alternative energy than the > beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national > security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited > energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to > being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries." Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review concerning what the reviewer believes might happen if COLD FUSION becomes a reality in our geo-political world. >From what I can tell Jed disagrees with the book reviewer's opinion and says >so: >From Jed: > I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. > I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for > alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save > tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global > warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in > Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in > comparison. > In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations > are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. > That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit > as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also > from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end > of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But > I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they > happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them > extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to > do but it was our fault, not theirs. Now, compare Jed's comments to Thomas Malloy's follow-up response on the above matter, which I presume subsequently earned Mr. Malloy's place in becoming temporarily banned in Vortex-l as well: >From Malloy: > Baloney, they support terrorism because of Islam's > desire to impose Sahriah Law on the entire world, > and what the Qu'ran says about dying in jihad,. When I personally compare Jed's comments to the responses Thomas made it seems obvious to me that Jed was attempting to set the record straight as he personally saw the potential future political situation in the Middle East. Of course, so did Mr. Malloy attempt to set the record straight as he personally sees the situation in the Middle East. Are both comments "political". Yes, I guess you could say so. However, In Jed's situation I perceive his Washington Post comments (which he cc'd to Vortex-l) as constructive suggestions and perceptions that might help us all get out of the ideological messes the world is currently mired in. Thomas's responses, to Jed's comments, on the other hand, IMO, only fan the flames of political/religious conflict even more. There were no constructive suggestions in Mr. Malloy's responses concerning how we might go about making the geo-political situation better other than to imply that we must ultimately prepare for an inevitable "holy" war that has been so-prophesized within the Holy Book, the ultimate Jihad against the enemy. Am I being arbitrary. Yes. Guilty as charged. I don't care. REASON TWO: Jed in my view has scrupulously avoided engaging in any of the recent fan-flaming of political ideology instigated by the "grok" persona. It is my understanding that Jed wisely and quickly realized that the "grok" persona was nothing more than another annoying troll. Jed dealt with the matter efficiently by filtering out the "grok" persona's email address from his personal mail box. As such, I do not recall reading a single comment/post made by Jed from the past several weeks that had anything to do with responding specifically to any of the "grok" persona's political ideology. For this reason it is, IMO, unfair and unnecessary to single out and penalize Jed (however temporary the ban may be) for having cc'ing to Vortex-l political-related comments he made over at the Washington Post. Jed should not be singled out and to be made another example of the crimes many of us (including me) were responsible for exacerbating within Vortex-l. Jed, IMHO, is completely innocent of such actions and should not be singled out for temporary punishment. POSSIBLE SOLUTION: I offer myself up as a prisoner-exchange with the specific purpose of freeing Jed from temporary banishment from Vortex-l. However, in order to do so I must be charged with violating the rules. Therefore, I must now proceed to violate the rules: Thomas, I thought your recent religious response to Jed's suggestion about the Middle Eastern problem was full of poo-poo ka-ka. I think Ann Coulter is the equivalent of a media-troll. After all one can only lift one's skirt so many times to offend the grown-ups before the age of four and get away with such outrageous behavior. After the age of four, one must come up with more sophisticated ploys to outrage others. I think Rush Limbaugh is a big fat blowhard. His recent physical infirmities, particularly the one that almost cost him his hearing was likely due to his Inner Essence desperately attempting to warn him that if he continued to behave like the big fat blow-hard that he is that soon all he would be able to hear (literally) would be his own blow-hard opinions blowing in the wind right back into his own fat face. Mr. Beaty. I stand guilty-as-charged for violating the rules. I offer myself up in exchange for Mr. Rothwell's release from temporary banishment. I hope this will be considered a fair exchange. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
