About Ken [was: Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield]

r norman rsn_ at _comcast.net
Sat Feb 14 17:53:00 EST 2004


On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:51:22 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
<targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:31:28 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>} As a rapidly aging guy brought up in the Eisenhower era to be polite
>} and respectful, I find truly appalling the level of civil discourse
>} all too often practiced on news groups.  (Not this one so much). I
>} think I made it pretty clear that neither I nor anyone else in the
>} universe believes his theories.  But I didn't feel it necessary to be
>} rude about it.
>} 
>
>I'd like it to be known that I have nothing against him and his
>"theories" I only have something against him expounding them at
>unsuspecting people asking serious questions. They're very often
>students, and posting in a non-alt newsgroup might expect real answers
>to their questions. I think they deserve the chance to find the right
>answers, and that sometimes necessarily includes indicating a given
>answer is wrong. If in doing so I can shorten the time it takes to
>make the effect stick, and therfore decrease the long term traffic
>noise level, I will.
>
>Compare him with John Winston. John hangs out in the UFO and
>paranormal groups, regularly posting things he's found along those
>lines. If someone asks him a question about something he knows or has
>material on, he posts it. He's been doing this for 15 years on usenet
>and Fidonet before that. He's impervious to flames because he knows
>he's done nothing to give people cause to be upset with him. Never has
>he done the equivalent to what goes on here, such as answering every
>question by claiming it's related to motion (because after all, all
>energy and matter are in motion) and then relating it to Bob Lazar's
>"discovery" that the anti-gravity engines in the flying saucers at
>Area 51 run on element 115. I've been a major fan of John Winston (for
>his behavior, not his material) for all of those 15 years. No one can
>claim that in all that time he misled anyone.

I apologize.  An inexplicable twitch of my thumb on the mouse caused
me to post, not just one, but two unfinished posts.

Ken's posts are most definitely disruptive.  But he is not going to
stop just because we tell him that.  I don't know his problem, but I
can't help him.  My point is that I demean myself by getting nasty and
vicious and it still doesn't solve anything.

I further apologize for even suggesting that such nastiness had
occurred in this group.  I had not.  It is just that I read the
incredible flaming that goes on in groups like talk.origins and then
come here all riled up and overreact.

Ken, if you are reading -- you are entitled to post your theories.
But you are entitled to do it just once and then stop.  You are
entitled to respond to other posts and queries.  But just once. It
really is an abuse of news group protocol to answer your own posts and
do it again and again and again.  There are threads where you post
four, six, even eight, ten or twelve posts in a row.  If you have
something to say, say it once and stop.  If you think of more to add
later, too bad.  That means you shouldn't post anything until you have
thought it through sufficiently.  I won't attribute psychological
pathologies behind your behavior but you should know at least that is
not normal especially in a group that is supposed to be devoted to
science and not to advocacy or disputation.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list