>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. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Edmund Storms<[email protected]> wrote: > Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not > engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent > comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I > suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science > because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful > discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present > situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other > hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable > to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not > one of them. > > Ed > > > On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: > >> 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 >> > >
