Re: [Vo]:CNN iReport on BLP

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

 The presence of a previously
unknown form of energy was frequently inferred by HHO researchers from the
amazing scalability of oxyhydrogen welding torches.

I've watched this happen; watched firebrick MELTING in seconds right in front 
of my own  lyin' eyes... It was called Brown's gas when I watched it happen...  
I often wondered what would happen if one placed a kettle of water on a burner 
powered by "Brown's Gas."  By the way, it was only effective on solids of 
various sorts; wouldn't burn skin; you could pass your hand through the 
colourless flame with no ill effects.

P.





From: Frank 
To: mix...@bigpond.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 7:58:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CNN iReport on BLP

  
Mixent said on  Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:36:58 -0800
[snip]
Nevertheless I was pleased and surprised to note that he
made the connection with the HHO stuff.
 [/snip]
Robin,
Yes,
and that was just one of several disparate fields he pulled together – I was
impressed by how well he stated his case in non technical terms, I think his
grass roots message is reaching critical mass.
[Snip from Ireport ] 
 At another level,
the discovery of the hydrino is perhaps a validation of oxyhydrogen researchers
who have long claimed the presence of a heretofore inexplicable energy source
in hydrogen catalysis that produces increased energy during or after
electrolysis, when oxyhydrogen is burned in internal combustion engines. That
energy has been the foundation for a little-known and much-abused industry
surrounding oxyhydrogen, or HHO, where hydrogen is produced on demand in small,
engine-mounted kits called HHO generators (or, incorrectly, fuel cells) used as
a fuel supplement to increase power and gas mileage and eliminate emissions
from cars and trucks. Metals and chemicals that also form a part of the
BlackLight catalyst is applied as a coating to titanium HHO plates to isolate a
supposedly purer form of hydrogen.
The presence of a previously
unknown form of energy was frequently inferred by HHO researchers from the
amazing scalability of oxyhydrogen welding torches. Those can be scaled from a
few hundred degrees to whatever temperature melts a given metal, without any
further adjustments by the welder. Where does that ability to scale from 300
degrees to 10,000 degrees come from?
[/snip]

[Vo]:Unsubscribe

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Re: [Vo]:Science and faith

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

"One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts
that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one
does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other."

That was my point.  The fact that it was Dali just brings it home, because Dali 
did some "very odd" stuff.  We (all of us) seem to miss the point that one can 
do "very odd" stuff but still be able to benefit family/country/mankind (take 
your picks).  This applies to all walks of life; art is not the exclusive 
sanctuary of people who do "odd stuff".

The problem is one of justification, and in art especially, we go out of our 
way to justify, based on the fact that we "can't judge".  I also do some 
painting and drawing, and if I want to judge others' works, I'll damn well do 
it.  They (whoever they are) are also entitled to judge my works (if they feel 
like wasting their time).

Mapplethorpe (I also do photography), in my opinion was an excellent 
photographer.  His subject matter?  Not to my taste; when you (I) take a 
picture of a child I get down to the child's level; I don't take a picture in a 
downward direction... I'm sure you get the point.  So he seems to have been 
somewhat "bent" but if one likes his photography (irrespective of the 
"Mapplethorpe" label; and often the label is what sells it (would you 
believe!)) enough to put it on your walls, so be it.  Not me.  Neither 
Mapplethorpe nor various forms of corpses.

Going on a bit (as usual), but I don't think that art HAS to make a statement.  
Art (including my own) is just another form of vanity.  It's just pigment on 
paper or canvas, for goodness sake!!! It has as much spirituality in it 
(despite all the ooohs and aas) as does taking out the garbage... perhaps 
less...



P.



- Original Message 
From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 10:49:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science and faith


- Original Message 

From: PHILIP WINESTONE


> Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, "Benefit 
> of Clergy." It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation.

I couldn't find this essay on the web, but in common law - the "benefit of 
clergy" was  a provision by which priests charged with crimes could claim that 
they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts. Later it was an 
elitist way to get a lighter sentence.

I did find a review of the essay which is at the end of this post. It was 
Orwell's criticism of Salvadore Dali - and reminiscent of the controvery around 
artists Andres Searrano / Robert Mapplethorpe by the world famous "art expert" 
Jesse Helms. Curiously, this is one of the only issues where Helms made sense 
at all, to me - but that was not at all about "art" itself - simply about the 
funding of art with public money.

A more fanciful version of this dicotomy between secular expert-opinion and 
science expert-opinion will be found in Neal Stephenson's forthcoming novel 
"Anathem" due out soon. From the reviews - this is about a parallel, role 
reversed Earth whose inhabitants are locked into conflict between scientific 
and religious institutions. The planet is like Earth in some ways, but differs 
in one major respect: the religious and scientific institutions are essentially 
reversed from the way many would view them. Monks called 'the avout' live 
ascetic lives studying science, while the so called "saecular" world is 
populated with wealthy 'Deolators' (god-worshipers) who are obsessed with 
religion., who apparently succeed against scinece with ESP and other forms of 
spiritual activity which science canot understand.

Below is a non-professional review of "Benefit Of Clergy" - which is the title 
of a collection of essays that Orwell wrote about  Salvador Dali :

In this essay Orwell addresses what he perceived as the distinction between 
moral and artistic judgments, pointing at two distinct schools of thought among 
critics at the time. The first school of thought saw the subject matter of 
Dali's work (which at the time was very shocking, particularly to the 
homophobic Orwell) and instantly dismissed the artistic quality of the work. 
The other group perceived Dali as a great artist, and therefore (according to 
Orwell) dismissed claims that his work was immoral - (or possibly had different 
moral standards to Orwell, a possibility he failed to consider).

The crux of his argument comes in the following section: One ought to be able 
to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good 
draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a 
sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that 

Re: [Vo]:Science and faith

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Many years ago, George Orwell wrote a very powerful essay, entitled, "Benefit 
of Clergy."

It clarified - as only Orwell could - a similar type of situation.

I recommend that all Vorticians read it and think about what Orwell was trying 
to say.

P.



- Original Message 
From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:50:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science and faith


Stephen Lawrence wrote:


>  In fact, I'd say that the issue of the bad radios which Giuliani never
authorized funds to replace, along with the issue of his cross-dressing,
are two of the biggest factors which helped knock him out of the
presidential race.

Well, there is also rampant marital infidelity, not once but twice - support of 
gay rights, women's right to choice, etc and being an equal opportunity mayor- 
he was apparently even outed in NYC as "Fruiti Giuliani" -- go figure. "Big 
Bill" and JFK do not have any lock on being the most-oversexed politician ever. 
Maybe that comes with the territory, so to speak.

Apparently, if J Edgar Hoover is any indication (as well as the members of the 
Bohemia Club) cross-dressing is not fatal to your ability to serve in the 
highest offices of the land, so long as you are somewhat discrete :-)

If you want to read a tamed-down version of why Giuliani is unfit for public 
office, maybe even for US citizenship, read the Vanity Fair article (which 
doesn't even get into the 9/11 scandal which he will be facing - if and only if 
- McCain loses).

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/giuliani200801

It was clear early on this year - that his candidacy was doomed by the right, 
not the Dem-wits - but less clear that the only thing which has kept him from a 
grand jury investigation is that he has plenty of dirt to sling on the higher 
ups in food-chain in the 9/11 aftermath ... like ... who it was that told him 
that the first tower (not the second nor WTC7) was about to come down

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

As for fighting thugs, you seem to forget that the people in Palestine 
were first attacked when Israel was formed.

This is simply not true - a lie in fact - among many others I've seen from Ed.  
Ed can be as amazed as he wishes; his ignorance of history is spellbinding... 
And this is coming from a person who as a youngster, shunned history at school 
in favour of science.  The people in Palestine were told to leave by their 
leaders, so that the Jews could be easily slaughtered by the better armed and 
very large Arab armies.  It didn't  happen. Prior to this time, the Jews in 
Arab lands were subjected to pogroms and had their houses and belongings 
confiscated.  They were then forcibly expelled... those that weren't killed.

PLEASE!  I've told you this before, Ed, and I told you to read a damn history 
book or two; not a book by some Jewish holocaust denying wacko.  Where does 
that put your mentality.

Now - again, I'm sorry Vorticians I won't continue this fruitless 
conversation.  I simply can't make the blind see.

Out.

P.



- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:21:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

I'm amazed Philip that you would call my analysis lies and hypocrisy. We 
can differ about what the facts mean, but I don't understand why you 
can't acknowledge easily verifiable facts. Unfortunately, your reaction 
is not uncommon and it is the reason why rational decisions are not 
being made. So that you are not further confused by my approach, by 
rational decisions I mean ones that would allow Israel to survive 
without counting on the supernatural. Even the Bible advises that God 
helps those who help themselves. I see no sign that Israel is taking 
this advice in a rational way. Instead, they seem to have your approach.

No one blames Israel for everything. However, Israel is the cause of the 
conflicts in that region of the world. You don't need to accept my 
statement because many sources of this opinion are available. Right now 
the price of oil is going up partly because of the conflict in Iraq and 
the possibility that the US or Israel will attack Iran. You can easily 
check this fact as well. The US has nothing to fear from a proposed 
nuclear weapon from Iran. First, it can not reach us, they want us to 
buy their oil in the future, and last but not least, we can turn them 
into toast. Only Israel has something to fear, as Iran has made clear. 
Consequently, we are helping Israel even though we have no direct threat 
to ourselves, while paying dearly.

As for fighting thugs, you seem to forget that the people in Palestine 
were first attacked when Israel was formed. Naturally, they fought back. 
Now you use this response as a reason to fight them. This is the cycle 
that always leads to destruction when the sides are evenly matched. That 
is why Christ advised turning the other cheek. I don't advise this 
approach now, but the brute force approach is not working either. Unless 
  rational decisions are made in the future, the result I fear will not 
please either one of us.

As for further discussion of this topic, I apologize to anyone who finds 
this boring or unimportant.

Ed












PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> Hmmm... Ya don't think that higher oil prices are due to (1) greed, and 
> (2) the holy purpose of holding the world by the balls until the 
> Caliphate is established (ie - the West succumbs financially and goes 
> down the tubes)?  It seems that the scientific idea of cause and effect 
> is somewhat inapplicable to the situation as you see it.  Got a 
> migraine?  It's Israel!  It's the Jews!!! (Take your pick.)
> 
> Actions violating modern standards of behaviour?  Exactly what 
> standards?  I've been practising the martial arts for close to 30 years, 
> and I can tell you how best to handle murderous thugs... including those 
> populating that great tax waster, the UN.  Like I said before, if a 
> person wants to harm my family or myself, I will spare no effort to put 
> an end to him.  Perhaps you should think of what your gut reaction would 
> be in that kind of situation.  I venture that if a thug - any thug - 
> came at you or your wife to commit mayhem and you had a gun handy, you 
> couldn't get to it fast enough.   If not, you're not a normal human 
> being.  This is the human condition.  Survival. Not theological or 
> historical arguments.
> 
> No more walking passively into cattle-cars toward death, surrounded by 
> thugs.
> 
> Open your eyes Ed.  That is, if you want to... which doesn't seem 
> apparent.  Too much education and worship of the intellect, perhaps; try 
> using your intuition.  Works also for solving Cold Fusion and other 
> energy-related problems.
> 
> To

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hmmm... Ya don't think that higher oil prices are due to (1) greed, and (2) the 
holy purpose of holding the world by the balls until the Caliphate is 
established (ie - the West succumbs financially and goes down the tubes)?  It 
seems that the scientific idea of cause and effect is somewhat inapplicable to 
the situation as you see it.  Got a migraine?  It's Israel!  It's the 
Jews!!! (Take your pick.)

Actions violating modern standards of behaviour?  Exactly what standards?  I've 
been practising the martial arts for close to 30 years, and I can tell you how 
best to handle murderous thugs... including those populating that great tax 
waster, the UN.  Like I said before, if a person wants to harm my family or 
myself, I will spare no effort to put an end to him.  Perhaps you should think 
of what your gut reaction would be in that kind of situation.  I venture that 
if a thug - any thug - came at you or your wife to commit mayhem and you had a 
gun handy, you couldn't get to it fast enough.   If not, you're not a normal 
human being.  This is the human condition.  Survival. Not theological or 
historical arguments.

No more walking passively into cattle-cars toward death, surrounded by thugs.

Open your eyes Ed.  That is, if you want to... which doesn't seem apparent.  
Too much education and worship of the intellect, perhaps; try using your 
intuition.  Works also for solving Cold Fusion and other energy-related 
problems.

To the others at Vortex; I didn't want to prolong this nonsense, but I simply 
won't stand by passively when I see lies and hypocrisy in front of me. It's 
called defamation, and it's been going on for a long time.  And it's going to 
have to stop, or there will be horrendous problems.

So I apologize to all.  

P.



- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:31:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds



thomas malloy wrote:

> The return of the Jews, the conquest of the land, it's subsequent 
> prosperity, the hatred of the Arabs, their refusal to get over the 
> indignity of the loss of that part of their conquered land, the Liberals 
> support of Islam. IMHO, It's all supernatural.  BTW, comprise will get 
> no where with the Islamists, it's counterproductive.

If this is the case Thomas, Israel better have God on its side because 
otherwise the country is doomed. This conclusion is obvious to any 
rational person, not just liberals. Here is a small country that is not 
self sufficient without outside aid and is surrounding itself with walls 
to protect itself from its neighbors. Meanwhile, it is surrounded by a 
hostile population that is growing richer and increasing in numbers. At 
the same time, the rest of the world is being significantly 
inconvenienced by the consequences of the conflicts in the area, i.e. 
higher oil prices. To make the situation worse for Israel, its actions 
violate modern standards of behavior, as shown by the various UN 
resolutions, both passed and proposed, that condemn its behavior. Surely 
these facts must concern all Jews and Christians. At some point, 
theological and historical arguments simply won't work any more. How 
long must people wait until this reality becomes obvious?

Ed
> 
> Edmund Storms wrote:
> 
>>  God's will. We are to believe that the Jews are more favored than the 
>> Philistines by God and that the moral teachings of Christ allow such a 
>> conquest.  This is not a normal conflict!  In addition, even if we 
>> ignore the moral issue, the practical issue of Israel being able to 
>> survive while being surrounded by angry people who have access to 
>> rockets needs to be considered. Granted, Israel has won the pitched 
>> battles. But, will they win the war without compromise?
>>
>> thomas malloy wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>>

 R C Macaulay wrote:

> Howdy Vorts,
>  
> Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs. 
> This time the "wedge" is oil. The USA 


> 
> 
> 
> --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
> http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Quite right Ed.  For an interesting story on this, read any of the biographies 
of Edgar Cayce - "The Sleeping Prophet"

P..


- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives 
are not remembered. I suggest you read the books by Dr. Ian Stevenson 
(MD). Prof. Stevenson spent his career at the University of Virginia 
investigating reincarnation using a scientific approach. Naturally, his 
extensive investigation has been largely ignored because, as you point 
out, it defies physical and conventional understanding. Nevertheless, 
evidence exists for past-life memories, especially in children. This 
life might not be a waste after all.

Ed

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> 
> 
> OrionWorks wrote:
> 
>> Philip sez:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> People are where they are because it's where they
>>> are, as "part of the dream."  My approach is, "live
>>> with it." go out, have a coffee and a bagel (or some
>>> nice organic bread) and get on with life.  There's
>>> room enough for everyone, and everyone can make good,
>>> as long as they work for everything, and don't try to
>>> plunder what the next man has.
>>
>>
>> This strikes me as incredibly naive. And yet, it is precisely how I
>> try to live my life each day. I often feel like I'm not very good at
>> it - living up to this interpretation of the Golden Rule. It is
>> nevertheless a worthy goal to strive towards each day, one day at a
>> time.
>>
>> Perhaps in ten or twelve more lifetimes I'll get the hang of it. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way; there isn't any "practice 
> effect" among incarnated beings.
> 
> Memory is organic, mediated by the hippocampus and related brain 
> "hardware".  Consequently at the end of your life, you'll leave that all 
> behind; in your next life you won't remember anything about Steve 
> Johnson, and, considering how outnumbered humans are among the sentient 
> creatures, chances are you won't even remember anything about what it's 
> like to be human.  You'll just have to start over from scratch, and make 
> the best of it as a gerbil or whatever your consciousness happens to be 
> stuck in next time around.
> 
> How we're supposed to get anywhere with a system like this beats me.
> 
> 
>>
>> Baklava, anyone?
>>
>> Regards
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> www.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Exactly.

P.


- Original Message 
From: OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 9:05:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Philip sez:

...

> People are where they are because it's where they
> are, as "part of the dream."  My approach is, "live
> with it." go out, have a coffee and a bagel (or some
> nice organic bread) and get on with life.  There's
> room enough for everyone, and everyone can make good,
> as long as they work for everything, and don't try to
> plunder what the next man has.

This strikes me as incredibly naive. And yet, it is precisely how I
try to live my life each day. I often feel like I'm not very good at
it - living up to this interpretation of the Golden Rule. It is
nevertheless a worthy goal to strive towards each day, one day at a
time.

Perhaps in ten or twelve more lifetimes I'll get the hang of it. ;-)

Baklava, anyone?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

You have a point, and personally I don't go for the "God gave it to us" stuff, 
because I can't prove it.

But I have to ask you if you live in America, and how you feel about the white 
man coming in and taking over, and, if you feel bad about it - very bad about 
it - if you've ever considered moving back to the land of your ancestors... 
assuming your ancestors, for example, didn't come over to the UK with William 
the Conquerer.  That poses new problems.

People are where they are because it's where they are, as "part of the dream."  
My approach is, "live with it." go out, have a coffee and a bagel (or some nice 
organic bread) and get on with life.  There's room enough for everyone, and 
everyone can make good, as long as they work for everything, and don't try to 
plunder what the next man has.

You should read the Mahabharata; about the Pandavas and the Kauravas... Fun 
stuff (apologies to Richard).

P.


- Original Message 
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 3:57:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds



R C Macaulay wrote:
> Howdy Vorts,
>  
> Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs. This 
> time the "wedge" is oil. The USA uses oil like toilet paper and 
> everybuddy knows wez intitled to it.. or we think we do. We have enough 
> oil provided we turn off a few lights and live like I we did back in the 
> '30's by riding bicycles. We ain't gonna cuz we are better and smarter 
> than anyone else and besides, we deserve it.. ask any TV advertizing 
> message.
>  
> If we are getting into a middle east debate over some long term bar room 
> argument, this feud over land goes back awhile. Ask any Palestinian 
> lounging on the  corner in Gaza and he'll correct you by stating .. 
> don't call me a Pallestinian.. call me a Canaanite cuz we wuz here first.
>  
> The fact that Abraham came to Canaan and bought his land fair and square 
> ain't got nuthin to do with it.


OK now this is 3500 year old history, so I hope we can discuss it in a 
little more depth while leaving our guns safely out of sight under the 
table, eh?

To be blunt, if you want to do a title search on the land of Israel you 
need to start with Joshua, not Genesis, and the stories aren't very similar.

Sure Abram (later Abraham) and his gang paid for the land they settled 
on when they *first* came to Canaan.  But then the weather turned poor 
and they didn't want to just tough it out, so they pulled up stakes and 
moved to Egypt, apparently preferring to live under the thumb of the 
predecessors of Nasser to trying to scratch out a living in land which 
showed every sign of turning into a desert.  Their neighbors, in 
contrast, apparently stayed put and just "made do".

Since the not-yet-Israelites just left without so much as handing the 
keys to the local Century -14 broker to put the homestead on the market, 
after a couple centuries went by their former property was legally 
considered "abandoned" and was taken over by the local government, in 
the form of the Philistines.  (Under current U.S. law this typically 
happens a lot faster; property is considered "abandoned" after about 3 
to 5 years depending on the state.)

Subsequently, after deciding they didn't like living with Egyptians so 
much any more, Abraham's descendants moved back to Canaan.  And this 
time they most certainly didn't "buy" back their abandoned land "fair 
and square":  Instead, under the warlord Joshua's ungentle patronage, 
they barged in, all guns (and trumpets) blazing, and nuked everybody and 
everything in their path.  The rather astonishing destruction of the 
fortified city of Jericho is merely among the first of their exploits.

This didn't endear the nascent nation of Israel to the locals, and 
doesn't seem to put the possession of the land of Israel on the firmest 
of legal footings.  Oh, granted, God said it was theirs, so under God's 
law it's clear cut, but under international law it's rather hazier, I 
think; unlike God's law, international law doesn't technically recognize 
the principle of "might makes right".

But this is hopelessly off topic so I think I'd best shut up at this point.


> His kinfolks later bought up most of 
> Manhatten Island if you notice who's name's on the title to you 
> apartment. but.. that's why they call it "political science" at Yale.. 
> where all the really smart US presidents learn how to practice their 
> profession..
> Now if we can just find out what their profession is..
>  
> Richard

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Not sure if you read some of the stuff I wrote; better still, read a history 
book or two.  Find out the history of killing and pillage of "the Arab."  Ask 
any (Hindu) Indian about the Islamic invasion of India, wherein about 70 
million people died.  There is a difference between the perennial aggressor and 
the perennial defender, unless of course, you happen to be a moral equivalence 
type of person, where victim and aggressor are exactly the same...

And - unless you're blind, deaf and dumb - they're still thirsting for your 
balls - on a plate. And they don't hold back when telling us this.  They want a 
caliphate, wherein you'll be a second-class (at least) citizen.

Now of course I'm generalizing, which is never good, but this is what's coming 
out openly from their leaders.  Now if you like what they do and you like 
people telling you how to worship and whom to worship, and of course, when to 
worship, then you're their man.  Go for it.

P.




- Original Message 
From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 8:11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds "I am an Arab. Hath not an Arab eyes? Hath not an 
Arab hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same 
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the 
same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Jew? If you 
prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do 
we not die?"

Harry


On 9/6/2008 5:21 PM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:



The same situation is taking place as we speak.  Ideology and ego have replaced 
common sense, and perhaps outmoded things like honesty and decency... So we get 
guys writing such stunningly intellectual books... and those who lap up their 
content.



P.

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Mark,

I'm tired of these people... There's a Jewish guy called Norm Finkelstein who 
is both a holocaust denier and an Arab terrorist apologist (to say the least).  
Then there's my favourite, Noam Chomsky.  Like they say, if there are ten Jews 
in a room, you'll get at least eleven opinions.  

Perhaps this writer should investigate and write about Arab plunder and 
conquest... but then again that's really dangerous; he could get seriously hurt 
- even killed.  Far safer to write insane stuff about his fellow Jews.  No 
fatwas in Judaism. 

About 2000 years ago, the best Jewish (I don't think they were called Jews 
then) fighters assembled in Jerusalem before taking on the Romans in one mother 
of all battles.  Between arriving in Jerusalem and "girding up their loins" the 
Jewish fighters were so busy slaughtering each other, that they forgot their 
true purpose.  Go figure.  Of course, as we know the Romans won big time and 
renamed that bit of land "Palestine" just to rub it in (after the Philistines, 
the arch-enemy of Israel).

The same situation is taking place as we speak.  Ideology and ego have replaced 
common sense, and perhaps outmoded things like honesty and decency... So we get 
guys writing such stunningly intellectual books... and those who lap up their 
content.



P.



- Original Message 
From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 10:32:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Here's a good description of the history of Israel 
and Palestine, by a jewish author:

http://takingaimradio.com/hhz/
The Hidden History of Zionism, By Ralph Schoenman

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 09:41:28PM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
> I don't like the situation either, Philip. However, when a nation has the 
> oil we need, it is apparently easy to be nice. If not, we have to pay an 
> even greater price for our principles. This is actually the way the world 
> works these days. In the past, the US called the shots. Increasingly, the 
> oil suppliers and China will call the shots. Get use to the idea, because 
> it is only going to get worse. You should ask why such a situation was 
> allowed to develop. These situations do not occur by accident.
>
> As for Israel, it is hard to choose words carefully and still be honest. 
> The situation is not based on scientific logic, but on faith and religious 
> belief. A significant number of people in the US believe that Israel was 
> given to the Jews by God. These people have significant influence and they 
> vote. Therefore, any criticism about how Israel behaves is unpopular, being 
> called anti-Semitism. As a result, Israel can cause the US to do things 
> that would otherwise be impossible if demanded by another country. History 
> shows why is is true. Creation of the country displaced millions of 
> Palestinians. These people were forced from their homes and land. This is a 
> fact. As a result, these people and people in the surrounding countries 
> have been and continue to be angry at the unfairness of this, regardless of 
> the justification based on God's will. Nevertheless, the US has sided 
> heavily in favor of Israel. Because the Palestinians do not have modern 
> weapons, as supplied by the US to Israel, they fight with the only tools 
> they have. The US labels this method terrorism, which it is. As a result, 
> the situation is made more one sided and desperate. No body wins and the US 
> is dragged deeper into the conflict. No matter which side you favor, this 
> is the situation.  The policies used in the past have clearly not worked no 
> matter how "correct" you think them to be. The question is, what do you 
> suggest we do now?
>
> Ed
>
> PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
>
>> I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose 
>> greatest wish is to cut my throat.  The leader of the greatest and most 
>> benevolent country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to "make 
>> nice" to people who by their teachings precipitated the 9/11 disaster, and 
>> who incidentally benefit greatly in many ways, many of them most 
>> unpleasant, from current oil prices?  Just a little strange to me.  I'm no 
>> politician, but I do respect - as the Soviets did - a nation whose leaders 
>> make it perfectly clear what would happen if America were to be 
>> jeopardized.  Not so with the Saudis. We "make nice."
>> As for "supporting everything the Israeli government wants." Can you be a 
>> little more definitive?  You say, "... the Bush gang is so incompetent and 
>> so under the domination of Israel..."  Perhaps you could reword this so 
>> that we could all understand (if we're 

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I like all that Steven... I do tend to lecture a little (perhaps a lot); just 
ask my wife...

But it doesn't really matter if nobody is paying attention to the content - 
which is a human condition; we're too busy paying attention to what's going on 
inside our minds by way of reaction.  C'est la vie.

I particularly like what you say about looking back in history.  This is 
absolutely correct.  And what seems like a big mistake at any given time, can 
turn out to have wonderful consequences.   Of course we don't know that at the 
time (just figure out what William the Conquerer was thinking as he was 
conquering)... We're not really in control of outcomes, although we think we 
are.

See what I mean about my tending to lecture?

P.


- Original Message 
From: OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 10:17:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

>From Philip (addressed to Edmund Storms):

> If you want to have further discussions on this
> (or Sai Baba, or Reality), you may want to ask
> Steve K for my email address.

It's my understanding that when one joins the Vortex group they must
assign a personal email address. Anyone on the vortex email list can
privately email anyone who joins the group should they chose to carry
on private deliberations. (I certainly have on occasion.) It's only
when the vortex messages are subsequently posted to the Eskimo web
site archive database that individual email addresses are expunged for
security reasons.

FWIW, in regards to your offer, if you had addressed me in the manner
you just addressed Ed I know I would not be inclined to want to
continue private discussions. Granted, Ed did ask you point blank to
respond to his query, so you were perfectly within your right to
express your opinions. Perhaps it's a matter of personal taste, where
your comments stuck me more as a form of a lecture than perhaps was
your actual intention. I know from personal experience that I learn
very little listening to lectures I did not personally sign up for.

It seems to me that if we look far enough back in history we would
eventually find that no individual, no nation, is free from guilt.

It is my hope that if more of us are willing to acknowledge the fact
that we are not immune from our sense of outrage, perhaps enough of us
can then step back from the automatic impulses to even the score. I'm
convinced there are wise individuals on both sides of the fence who
understand this. Unfortunately, emotions that evoke a sense of outrage
are just too delicious for most of us to let go of for the moment.
Outrage becomes an addiction. It demands to be constantly stoked. I
have felt the addiction myself. No one is immune.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Sorry Ed, but there's a lot of muddled thinking in this little "essay".  Not 
like you, I'm sure.

I don't want to take up much more time in this forum; it's not the place.  But 
if I were you, I'd get right into the history books.

Aside from the fact that since the advent of Islam, it's history has been one 
of conquer and plunder.  Look around.  India is a good example, as is Persia.  
History is history.  These two great civilizations have managed to retain some 
of their original character, but most have totally succumbed and are now 
essentially basket cases.

":...land given to Jews by God.."  A little study will show that the Romans 
expelled the Jews of the time from certain areas... not everywhere. Jews have 
always lived there during the past 2000 years, and many went back after the 
Roman empire fell.  The crusades, by the way, were a rather brutish way of 
freeing the "holy land" from the Arabs who had originally plundered it  soon 
after the advent of  Islam.  Check all this out.

And as for for the original  Palestinian inhabitants being forced from their 
land, they were encouraged to leave by their "Arab brothers" who wanted some 
free space so that they could slaughter the Jews more easily; the Jews who had 
just arrived from the concentration camps to join their brethren. The fact that 
an equal number (almost one million) Jews were unceremoniously thrown out of 
the Arab lands before the events of 1948 seems to be constantly forgotten.  
Where did they go?  Where could they go?  Why Israel of course.  They were 
welcomed there, as opposed to the Palestinians who were held in limbo for 
political reasons where they still remain.

Ed, I don't care what a person's reasons are for wanting me dead. If that 
person tries to fulfill this intention, I'll try to take him down without 
hesitation.  It's called a "human reaction."  If the Arabs - particularly the 
Palestinians - were to lay down their arms they could get on with life and 
start to build stuff, but it's not in their nature.  Read your bible.

Me? I'm a highly imperfect Canadian who utterly detests dishonesty and 
hypocrisy and ignorance.  Governments and the Oil Gang  fit this
description perfectly, so I really have no time for politics of any 
description... Like I said - part of the dream...

If you want to have further discussions on this (or Sai Baba, or Reality), you 
may want to ask Steve K for my email address.

P.



- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:41:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

I don't like the situation either, Philip. However, when a nation has 
the oil we need, it is apparently easy to be nice. If not, we have to 
pay an even greater price for our principles. This is actually the way 
the world works these days. In the past, the US called the shots. 
Increasingly, the oil suppliers and China will call the shots. Get use 
to the idea, because it is only going to get worse. You should ask why 
such a situation was allowed to develop. These situations do not occur 
by accident.

As for Israel, it is hard to choose words carefully and still be honest. 
The situation is not based on scientific logic, but on faith and 
religious belief. A significant number of people in the US believe that 
Israel was given to the Jews by God. These people have significant 
influence and they vote. Therefore, any criticism about how Israel 
behaves is unpopular, being called anti-Semitism. As a result, Israel 
can cause the US to do things that would otherwise be impossible if 
demanded by another country. History shows why is is true. Creation of 
the country displaced millions of Palestinians. These people were forced 
from their homes and land. This is a fact. As a result, these people and 
people in the surrounding countries have been and continue to be angry 
at the unfairness of this, regardless of the justification based on 
God's will. Nevertheless, the US has sided heavily in favor of Israel. 
Because the Palestinians do not have modern weapons, as supplied by the 
US to Israel, they fight with the only tools they have. The US labels 
this method terrorism, which it is. As a result, the situation is made 
more one sided and desperate. No body wins and the US is dragged deeper 
into the conflict. No matter which side you favor, this is the 
situation.  The policies used in the past have clearly not worked no 
matter how "correct" you think them to be. The question is, what do you 
suggest we do now?

Ed



PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose 
> greatest wish is to cut my throat.  The leader of the greatest and most 
> benevolent country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to 
> "make nice" to peop

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Steven, I can understand.  I was in Pakistan a few years ago doing engineering 
work (fortunately I wasn't a journalist), and I saw many men holding hands.  
S'OK... as kids we all held our fathers' hands...  However - and I don't want 
to read too much into this - this was done in America, in the public eye, and 
American ways are different.

There seems to be a definite chumminess, which under other circumstances is 
perfectly ok.

P.


- Original Message 
From: OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:40:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Philip recently sed:

> I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person
> some time ago, ...

and ed recently sed:

> Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with
> the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump
> more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no
> conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting
> everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for
> money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately,
> the two have now formed an explosive mixture.


While I'm no fan of the shrub I suspect one of Bush's advisers
informed him of the Saudi custom than men held each other's hands in
public.

http://teachsaudi.50webs.com/culture.htm

*   Saudi men often greet each other with kisses, but Saudi men
usually just shake hands with foreign men unless they are close
friends.

* The opposite sexes should never kiss in public.

* Men sometimes hold hands with each other in Saudi Arabia (although
not with women in public). Holding hands with another man is a sign of
friendship, with no sexual connotations.

* Foreign men may feel uncomfortable when another man grips their
hand, but it would be insensitive to prematurely withdraw from the
contact.

* On the other hand, Western couples should avoid any physical contact
with each other in public. You may see very modern-minded Saudi
couples holding hands, but don't imitate them.

* * *

Of course, not everyone has interpreted Bush's recent "hand holding"
gesture as a benign gesture:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363995_kelsoonline22.html


Personal thought: How ironic that countries so apparently open about
the custom of same sexes holding each other's hand in public without
feeling it is a sexual advance are nevertheless terrified of the
opposite sex, or worse, terrified of the notion of being sexually
attracted to a person of the same sex.

Go figure.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose greatest 
wish is to cut my throat.  The leader of the greatest and most benevolent 
country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to "make nice" to people 
who by their teachings precipitated the 9/11 disaster, and who incidentally 
benefit greatly in many ways, many of them most unpleasant, from current oil 
prices?  Just a little strange to me.  I'm no politician, but I do respect - as 
the Soviets did - a nation whose leaders make it perfectly clear what would 
happen if America were to be jeopardized.  Not so with the Saudis. We "make 
nice."

As for "supporting  everything the Israeli government wants." Can you be a 
little more definitive?  You say, "... the Bush gang is so incompetent and so 
under the domination of Israel..."  Perhaps you could reword this so that we 
could all understand (if we're interested, which I'm sure most people here 
aren't) exactly what this tiny nation in this tiny sliver of land (about the 
size of New Jersey) is using to "dominate" the most powerful nation in the 
world.  I guess it could be Viagra...  Whatever it is, I'd like some of this 
"domination juice."

Please choose you words a little more carefully if you can't offer "scientific 
explanations." They're a dead giveaway...

P.



- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:03:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was 
trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. 
However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and 
supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for 
money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have 
now formed an explosive mixture.

Ed

PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> That's funny Ed,
> 
> I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some 
> time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of 
> these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows.  I must have 
> been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in 
> disguise...  Silly me for not immediately seeing that...
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
> 
> Hi Jack,
> 
> You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this
> benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile,
> decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise
> as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil
> saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so
> pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US.
> To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political
> situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is
> developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with.
> Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by
> greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The
> third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so
> incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a
> situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Taylor J. Smith wrote:
> 
>  > Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008:
>  >
>  > "This approach has been applied repeatedly with the
>  > same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia
>  > made simple and cheap reactors that powered their
>  > satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a
>  > "perfect" reactor that totally failed. As a result, we
>  > were forced to use solar panels that even today make the
>  > satellites easy targets.
>  >
>  > These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to
>  > failure even though our arrogance make them look good at
>  > the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to
>  > the Iraq situation. We never learn."
>  >
>  > Hi Ed,
>  >
>  > The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has
>  > been an outstanding success from the view point of those
>  > in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang.
>  > In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started
>  > the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy:
>  > Divide et Impera.
>  >
>  > Previously I wrote "The gangsters hav

Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

That's funny Ed,

I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, 
and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi 
people all controlling the world's oil flows.  I must have been either mistaken 
or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise...  Silly me for not 
immediately seeing that...

P.



- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds

Hi Jack,

You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this 
benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, 
decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise 
as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil 
saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so 
pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. 
To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political 
situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is 
developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. 
Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by 
greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The 
third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so 
incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a 
situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about.

Ed

Taylor J. Smith wrote:

> Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008:
> 
> "This approach has been applied repeatedly with the
> same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia
> made simple and cheap reactors that powered their
> satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a
> "perfect" reactor that totally failed. As a result, we
> were forced to use solar panels that even today make the
> satellites easy targets.
> 
> These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to
> failure even though our arrogance make them look good at
> the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to
> the Iraq situation. We never learn."
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has
> been an outstanding success from the view point of those
> in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang.
> In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started
> the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy:
> Divide et Impera.
> 
> Previously I wrote "The gangsters have taken another hit,
> and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit.  Meanwhile, the
> oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able
> to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the
> probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008.
> The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of
> oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight.
> 
> What will the Oil Gang do about this? ..."
> 
> Well, now we know.
> 
> Jack Smith
> 
> --
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/
> 
> TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08
> 
> ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An
> Outlook on Oil
> 
> SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move
> in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF
> Global. John, welcome back to the program.
> 
> JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne.
> 
> PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell
> us what happened.
> 
> KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We
> had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as
> they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are
> still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and
> we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've
> been speaking about in this broadcast so far.
> 
> I think chief among them though was the shudder that
> was sent through the market from Israel and the comments
> from their transportation minister, who isn't just some
> transportation minister. This gentleman was a former
> defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert
> because of the scandal that's going on embroiling
> his administration, and he also made a comment that
> U.S. military had approved of this plan.  [' Israel's
> Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that
> Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear
> program.']
> 
> 
> So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too
> long to get the details on that. They just bought with
> both hands because of the potentialities that exist and
> the repercussions that would come from such an attack.
> 
> PRATT: So is geopolitical risk now back on the table? It
> was sort of missing from the marketplace for a little
> while.
> 
> KILDUFF: We were, for a while, really just dealing with
> the economics of everything. From the -- from watching
> the value of the dollar closely, watching interest rate
> moves ver

Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hi Ed,

Glad to hear you got the book.  I enjoyed it immensely.

Difficult to explain what I meant by "the dream," especially in an email forum 
of any sort.  It may become a little clearer once you read what Rose had to say.

Philip.


- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2008 1:30:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention



PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> Ed,
> 
> Yes - I know something of Sai Baba, the latest in a lineage of Sai 
> Babas. I also know a disciple who spent 25 years at his ashrama.
> 
> But Sai Baba is also part of the dream...

Which dream is that? Or do you mean that we can only dream that the 
message will come true?
> 
> I'm not fixated on Richard Rose, nor anyone for that matter; been there, 
> done all that.   This thread runs a long way... May I suggest that you 
> read just the first chapter of "After the Absolute" by Dave Gold. 
> Ordinariness has its attractiveness...  You can read the chapter (in 
> fact the entire book) on-line.

Thanks, I ordered the book.

Ed
> 
> P.
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:23:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, Philip. I have not read of Richard Rose,
> but I know of many other people who have acquired extraordinary insight.
> In addition, some people have also been able to master some of the
> abilities Sai Baba exhibits. As with all things, these talents occur
> throughout the population to varying degree. However, only Sai Baba has
> these abilities in complete form and totally at his control. Besides, he
> is using the abilities to focus attention on a message worth hearing.
> This is not always the case. Sai Baba says that additional men having
> the same abilities are alive now in various countries and presently at
> different ages who will carry the message into the future. Keep your
> eyes open.
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
> 
>  > Ed,
>  >
>  > I wonder if you've ever heard of a man they called the "Backwoods
>  > Buddha"...  Look him up on the 'Net if you're interested...
>  >
>  > P.
>  >
>  > - Original Message 
>  > From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>  > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>  > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM
>  > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > OrionWorks wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >> Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of
>  >  >> me to have temporarily forgotten him.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> Isn't it interesting that someone with his unique perception on
>  >  >> reality, combined with his ability to manipulate reality (seemingly
>  >  >> the fundamental laws of physics) as Sai does remains, for the most
>  >  >> part, an undiscovered resource of the potentiality of humanity.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > I'm sorry, but I have to ask this... If he can work miracles, and if
>  >  > he's here to "fix up the mess" in any way shape or form, what's he
>  >  > actually doing to fix things up?
>  >
>  > Sai Baba is presently helping remake India by supporting schools he
>  > founded that teach his philosophy along with modern technology. As he
>  > says, a person can not remake the world without first remaking his own
>  > country. Obviously, the spirit world believe this is easier to do in
>  > India than elsewhere. I agree. The spirit world attempted to do this in
>  > the middle East 2000 years ago, but now look at the mess.
>  >  >
>  >  > Turn it around:  Sai Baba is a miracle worker and yet his impact has
>  >  > apparently been so slight that people outside of India are nearly
>  >  > unaware of him.  Why is that?
>  >
>  > A person only knows what they seek to learn. The information about Sai
>  > Baba is easily available, but not in the American press. But then,
>  > what's new about tat?
>  >  >
>  >  > The world abounds with problems which cry out for the touch of a 
> miracle
>  >  > worker, from lack of clean water for humans to lack of usable habitat
>  >  > for polar bears.  Surely someone gifted with physical powers which 
> allow
>  >  > him to manipulate r

Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Ed,

Yes - I know something of Sai Baba, the latest in a lineage of Sai Babas. I 
also know a disciple who spent 25 years at his ashrama.

But Sai Baba is also part of the dream...

I'm not fixated on Richard Rose, nor anyone for that matter; been there, done 
all that.   This thread runs a long way... May I suggest that you read just the 
first chapter of "After the Absolute" by Dave Gold. Ordinariness has its 
attractiveness...  You can read the chapter (in fact the entire book) on-line.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:23:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention

Thanks for pointing this out, Philip. I have not read of Richard Rose, 
but I know of many other people who have acquired extraordinary insight. 
In addition, some people have also been able to master some of the 
abilities Sai Baba exhibits. As with all things, these talents occur 
throughout the population to varying degree. However, only Sai Baba has 
these abilities in complete form and totally at his control. Besides, he 
is using the abilities to focus attention on a message worth hearing. 
This is not always the case. Sai Baba says that additional men having 
the same abilities are alive now in various countries and presently at 
different ages who will carry the message into the future. Keep your 
eyes open.

Ed



PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> Ed,
> 
> I wonder if you've ever heard of a man they called the "Backwoods 
> Buddha"...  Look him up on the 'Net if you're interested...
> 
> P.
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> 
>  >
>  >
>  > OrionWorks wrote:
>  >
>  >> Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of
>  >> me to have temporarily forgotten him.
>  >>
>  >> Isn't it interesting that someone with his unique perception on
>  >> reality, combined with his ability to manipulate reality (seemingly
>  >> the fundamental laws of physics) as Sai does remains, for the most
>  >> part, an undiscovered resource of the potentiality of humanity.
>  >
>  >
>  > I'm sorry, but I have to ask this... If he can work miracles, and if
>  > he's here to "fix up the mess" in any way shape or form, what's he
>  > actually doing to fix things up?
> 
> Sai Baba is presently helping remake India by supporting schools he
> founded that teach his philosophy along with modern technology. As he
> says, a person can not remake the world without first remaking his own
> country. Obviously, the spirit world believe this is easier to do in
> India than elsewhere. I agree. The spirit world attempted to do this in
> the middle East 2000 years ago, but now look at the mess.
>  >
>  > Turn it around:  Sai Baba is a miracle worker and yet his impact has
>  > apparently been so slight that people outside of India are nearly
>  > unaware of him.  Why is that?
> 
> A person only knows what they seek to learn. The information about Sai
> Baba is easily available, but not in the American press. But then,
> what's new about tat?
>  >
>  > The world abounds with problems which cry out for the touch of a miracle
>  > worker, from lack of clean water for humans to lack of usable habitat
>  > for polar bears.  Surely someone gifted with physical powers which allow
>  > him to manipulate reality at a fundamental level should be doing more
>  > with this capability than just using it as a sort of publicity stunt to
>  > get folks to come and listen to his sermons?
> 
> One man, no matter how talented, can not do it alone. His role is to
> teach other people how to solve the problems. After all, it was mankind
> who created the problems in the first place. We need to learn how to
> stop doing this.
>  >
>  > Philosophers ultimately wield great influence over events, it is true.
>  > But whatever power sent Sai Baba here must have intended him to be more
>  > than a philosopher, else why grant him such astonishing *physical*
>  > abilities?
> 
> His message will eventually start another religion, as have the messages
> of the other messengers. However, this takes time. Gradually, this
> religion will be corrupted, as has happened every time repair was
> attempted, and the process will be repeated. Gradually, mankind will
> learn to avoid religion, as some of us have already mastered.
>  >
>  > So, what is he doing with his powers, aside from he

Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Ed,

I wonder if you've ever heard of a man they called the "Backwoods Buddha"...  
Look him up on the 'Net if you're interested...

P.


- Original Message 
From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention



Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> 
> 
> OrionWorks wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of
>> me to have temporarily forgotten him.
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that someone with his unique perception on
>> reality, combined with his ability to manipulate reality (seemingly
>> the fundamental laws of physics) as Sai does remains, for the most
>> part, an undiscovered resource of the potentiality of humanity.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to ask this... If he can work miracles, and if 
> he's here to "fix up the mess" in any way shape or form, what's he 
> actually doing to fix things up?

Sai Baba is presently helping remake India by supporting schools he 
founded that teach his philosophy along with modern technology. As he 
says, a person can not remake the world without first remaking his own 
country. Obviously, the spirit world believe this is easier to do in 
India than elsewhere. I agree. The spirit world attempted to do this in 
the middle East 2000 years ago, but now look at the mess.
> 
> Turn it around:  Sai Baba is a miracle worker and yet his impact has 
> apparently been so slight that people outside of India are nearly 
> unaware of him.  Why is that?

A person only knows what they seek to learn. The information about Sai 
Baba is easily available, but not in the American press. But then, 
what's new about tat?
> 
> The world abounds with problems which cry out for the touch of a miracle 
> worker, from lack of clean water for humans to lack of usable habitat 
> for polar bears.  Surely someone gifted with physical powers which allow 
> him to manipulate reality at a fundamental level should be doing more 
> with this capability than just using it as a sort of publicity stunt to 
> get folks to come and listen to his sermons?

One man, no matter how talented, can not do it alone. His role is to 
teach other people how to solve the problems. After all, it was mankind 
who created the problems in the first place. We need to learn how to 
stop doing this.
> 
> Philosophers ultimately wield great influence over events, it is true. 
> But whatever power sent Sai Baba here must have intended him to be more 
> than a philosopher, else why grant him such astonishing *physical* 
> abilities?

His message will eventually start another religion, as have the messages 
of the other messengers. However, this takes time. Gradually, this 
religion will be corrupted, as has happened every time repair was 
attempted, and the process will be repeated. Gradually, mankind will 
learn to avoid religion, as some of us have already mastered.
> 
> So, what is he doing with his powers, aside from healing a relative 
> handful of individuals?  (In a world of 7 billion, hands-on healing of 
> individuals can never reach more than a relative handful, of course. 
> Another bit of perspective:  Bill Gates, with his charitable work which 
> includes large scale vaccination programs, has surely already reached 
> more people and prevented more disease than any single hands-on healer 
> could cure in a lifetime. Yet Gates is no miracle worker; surely someone 
> who can bend reality to his will should be able to do better than Gates.)

The individual is not as important as the whole of mankind. Mankind can 
only advance as fast as a certain level of understanding develops. This 
is a gradual process.  Meanwhile individuals come and go, with each 
adding, or sometimes subtracting from this understanding.
> 
> Money could not be a problem for a miracle worker, of course -- it takes 
> only the slightest ability to affect the laws of chance, or the teeniest 
> ability to predict the future, to allow one to amass as much wealth as 
> you could possibly need.  And it could be done subtly, as well; all the 
> world over there are stock markets which shower riches on those with 
> true prescience (or good judgment), and the phenomenon of getting rich 
> playing the market is common enough that it would not raise cries of 
> "Demon!" if someone with true second sight were to use it that way.

You are thinking too small. If this talent were used, it would 
destabilize the markets and cause all kinds of unwanted attention. Sai 
Baba gets his money from gifts, which is easier do do than playing the 
markets.

Ed
> 
> 
>>
>> By your account there are at least 150 books that have been written on
>> Baba. And yet Baba remains primarily an unknown individual,
>> particularly within our objectively oriented western culture. It would
>> seem that collectively speaking we have made a tact pact to ignore the
>> significance of what Sai teaches us, perhaps because the majority of
>> us would for the

Re: [Vo]:Southern California Edison now installing 250 MW of rooftop PV @ 1MW/week

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Of course there's a maximum number of watts per sq metre of panel available 
from the sun, so that's an important factor to consider when justifying any 
investment.  

On the other hand, by covering a roof (and perhaps a south-facing wall) with 
solar panels, the panels intercept the incoming solar radiation and 
substantially lessen the air conditioning load in the building.  That itself 
can result in substantial electrical/$ savings.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:09:11 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Southern California Edison now installing 250 MW of rooftop PV @ 
1MW/week

Wow! If urban photovoltaic already makes economical sense, even with already 
commercially available panels, even on rooftops, even at Californian 
installation manpower costs, nothing will stop its development now!

Let's try and guess what kind of PV technology they are using:

65 million ft^2 is ~6 million m^2, i.e. 6E6 peak incident kW, i.e. 6000 peak 
incident MW

250MW/6000MW =~ 4%, it must be some kind of thin film, mustn't it?

Michel

http://www.edison.com/pressroom/pr.asp?bu=&year=0&id=7002
<<
ROSEMEAD, Calif., March 27, 2008 – Southern California Edison (SCE) today 
launched the nation’s largest solar cell installation, a project that will 
place 250 megawatts of advanced photovoltaic generating technology on 65 
million square feet of roofs of Southern California commercial buildings – 
enough power to serve approximately 162,000 homes.
“These are the kinds of big ideas we need to meet California’s long-term energy 
and climate change goals,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “I urge others to 
follow in their footsteps. If commercial buildings statewide partnered with 
utilities to put this solar technology on their rooftops, it would set off a 
huge wave of renewable energy growth.” 
“This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial rooftops into 
advanced solar generating stations,” said John E. Bryson, Edison International 
chairman and CEO. “We hope to have the first solar rooftops in service by 
August. The sunlight power will be available to meet our largest challenge – 
peak load demands on the hottest days.”
SCE’s renewable energy project was prompted by recent advances in solar 
technology that reduce the cost of installed photovoltaic generation. When 
combined with the size of SCE’s investment, the resulting costs per unit are 
projected to be half that of common photovoltaic installations in California.
“The scale of this project is unprecedented,” said Mike Peevey, California 
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) president. “It clearly illustrates once 
again Edison’s leadership position in the development of new renewable 
technology.”
SCE today asked the CPUC for approval to install the solar cell technology 
during the next five years. The request estimates the total project cost will 
be $875 million (in today’s dollars). 
The utility plans to begin installation work immediately on commercial roofs in 
Southern California’s Inland Empire, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the 
nation’s fastest growing urban region.  
“These new solar stations, which we will be installing at a rate of one 
megawatt a week, will provide a new source of clean energy, directly in the 
fast-growing regions where we need it most,” said Bryson.
SCE sees numerous customer benefits from its new solar program, among them 
locating the new generation in areas of growing customer demand. And the 
clusters of solar modules SCE plans to install will be connected directly to 
the nearest neighborhood circuit, eliminating the need to build new 
transmission lines to bring the power to customers. Additionally, solar units 
produce the most power when customer usage is at its highest.
SCE believes its commercial solar roofs program will boost several California 
environmental initiatives, especially the Million Solar Roofs program that 
provides incentives to encourage Californians to install solar projects by 
2017. SCE’s solar program supports the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act 
requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as 
well as California’s renewable portfolio standard requiring that 20 percent of 
the state’s electricity be generated with renewable energy by 2010.
>>

Re: [Vo]:Earth Hour...yeah....

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

"One thing I don't get is why solar costs so much more
than nuclear or coal fired. There's almost no moving
parts, and much less to break down, it seems to me.
There's got to be some politics in this somewhere, but
I don't know exactly where."

A broad subject... One factor is that the amount of power can only be the 
maximum number of watts/sq metre... multiplied of course by the overall system 
efficiency. All seriously limiting of course.  Add computerized tracking and we 
have a huge capital cost increase. Another factor is the fact that these 
collectors (photovoltaic or thermal) tend to become wonderful sails under windy 
conditions, so they have to be installed ruggedly.  On roofs, that costs lots.  
In addition, installing them on roofs means that the roofing membranes have to 
be made watertight... You get the drift.  The overall question is: How many 
watts can be obtained from a huge system and at what capital cost.  Used to be 
a no-brainer.  Wasn't financially justifiable.  Now, I dunno.

My (somewhat educated) opinion on the uses of solar, was that small independent 
systems in very hot, sunny climates could be justified based on the 
alternative: expensive power from the grid.  A decent application was the 
installation of smallish systems that would drive the ceiling fans in apartment 
blocks in India.  Power up around 10:00 am and power down around 2:00 or 3:00 
pm - the hottest period of the day.  A system, some wires, some inexpensive DC 
fans.  

Then there was a proposal we undertook to pump water using small solar pumping 
stations, for irrigation in the Sahel region of Africa.  Couldn't get the 
political guys to see the sense in that to the point of funding it.  Better to 
sell (or give) guns and bombs to the Africans.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Kyle Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:53:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Earth Hour...yeah

--- OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm impressed!
> 
> Knock yourself out tonight!
> 

Heh, thanks Steven. I /probably/ was being mostly
sarcastic in my "evil plan" statement of action, as
I'll probably be making Hartley oscillators all night,
as well as chasing down the rumors I hear from a
friend that there are a few nice, old 1940's style
365pF air-variable capacitors just hanging around an
old dump, gathering dust. Unclaimed, I might add. If
weather permits, we're gonna go fetch 'em.

Thing is, I am, despite appearances, very concerned
about the environment, particularly destruction of
rain forests. That's something that bothers me badly.
But I can't stand the way the issue has been so
politicized. People are making money off this, when
they should be spending money to fix it. But I try to
conserve as much as I possibly can, whilst not
destroying my quality of life. It's been saving me a
hell of a lot of money, too, but that's not why I do
it.

If I absolutely KNEW for a dead certain fact that it
would be used to build EFFECTIVE solar collectors, or
wind farms, or what have you, I'd bite the bullet and
pay an extra $1 per gallon, starting right now. But I
have no proof this will happen. I live in New York,
the land of taxes that pay for the lazy to do no work,
or for hookers for the Governor, and so on. I trust no
taxes here. I'm opposed to more taxes on gasoline,
because I know it will not be used to solve the
problem.

One thing I don't get is why solar costs so much more
than nuclear or coal fired. There's almost no moving
parts, and much less to break down, it seems to me.
There's got to be some politics in this somewhere, but
I don't know exactly where. As much as we disagree on
things, I'm wondering if Jed can shed some light on
this. Where _really_ is the cost discrepancy coming
from? If we build the damned things in the desert,
where there's plenty of Sun, what's the deal? If it is
efficiency, hell, you just build more for less cost
per unit. Big deal. The fuel is free...what gives?

I'm a heck of a fan of solar heat for houses...but it
seems like no one likes that idea any more. Pity, it
can work wonders. Even up here, people have made
thermal cisterns to store up heat over the summer, and
they heat their homes in the winter with the hot
water.

In the end, it seems to boil down to one thing: the
more you tax, the more it's wasted on 'special
interest groups,' which nowadays can mean ANYTHING.

As for me, once was a Republican. Not any more. Just
an American, blue-collar man, who tries to be the best
he can for his wife, and tries to help those he can.
That's about all I am. Sworn to no political party.

I'm also told I'm pretty weird. Might be true.

--Kyle, who in the past couple of days, has come to
the conclusion that nothing oscillates when you want
it to, but always will when you DON'T want it to. 


  

Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Bloc

Re: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Yeah - even though I'm not North American by birth, I easily saw over the 
years, how much the public had been sucked into Japanese (and European) car 
mode.  And the stupid NA auto manufacturers got just as sucked in and tried to 
compete with the little 4-cyl jobs.  Americans were (and as far as I'm 
concerned still are) masters of the V8 and big 6 engines... I watched a 
documentary on how the NA auto designer boys designed all the "esoteric" cars 
that were around when I first set foot in Canada around 1968.  Outstanding.

So a few months ago I leased a Charger with a HEMI engine (after driving a Ford 
truck for 10 years)...  Excellent car... but politically incorrect as if I 
care.

Now if you want to see what the Bean Counters (government Bean Counters, no 
less) did to what could have been outstanding American nuclear power plant 
design by Oppenheimer and his group, read "Disturbing the Universe" by Freeman 
Dyson.  This is what you could call "one-dimensional thinking."

P.

- Original Message 
From: R C Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2008 8:33:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit?

Howdy Vorts,
People and their love affairs with their autos. Any fleet operator can show 
records that prove the Chevrolet autos  and small trucks are the best all 
around. We have a chev fleet, we try other brands for experience but  it's 
Chevrolet. Ever see a fleet of Lexus or Mercedes? Or Toyota trucks ? We can 
run a fleet of Chev pickups at near zero maintenance and trade when they 
teach 150,000 miles.
Funny, some have  a metal ID shows  assembled in Jaurez Mexico. Ask anybody 
that uses Toyota and Mercedes what service costs at their dealership.. 
notice one of the billionaires listed in this years survey is a Toyota 
dealer in Texas.
GM had the truck engine that won WW2, a 6 cyl workhorse. Germany built the 
tiger tank, the fighter plane and the 88 long gun but they couldn't build a 
6x6 2 1/2 ton truck.
It was management at GM that sold GM down the river, the poor dumb people 
that worked there just built the best.. thank you Roger Smith for the 
memories, and thank you ITT.
ITT was the Mafia wire service telephone company for the Cuba and south. 
After Castro took over, ITT claimed a loss and was compensated by the US. 
They took the money and bought US companies and hired accountants to parlay 
the cash outa the kazoo.
They were the teachers of tactics practiced by accountants since.
There is not a US insurance company that has a dime in cash in a US bank 
today. GMAC is now owned by HSBC, a Chinese Hong Kong bank run by British 
bankers (but never a US trained accountant)..
 Arthur Anderson CPA and Enron.. no place but Texas.
We should know by the ides of March if the banking and financial system of 
the USA will survive as we know it. The turkeys are trying hard enough to 
destroy it.
Now for the good news...
Richard


- Original Message - 
From: "thomas malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit?


> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>>I can't allow the denigration of engineers in the automotive industry
>>continue.  I had a friend who was an engineering manager in Detroit
>>
> I agree, IMHO, it's the MBA's and the lawyers.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Bigfoot on Mars??

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

It's the "other story" that's most likely the most interesting story...

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:29:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Bigfoot on Mars??

Howdy Horace,

NASA loves this kinda stuff if it gets them funding.
The Bigfoot character shown on the UTube vid looks exactly like the guy
 that 
went out the back door at the Dime Box  Saloon without paying his bar
 tab.
How he wound up on Mars is another story !

Richard 

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Layoffs... Been there, done that - both sides of the cut.

The business version of Survival of the Fittest?

P.


- Original Message 
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:38:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

Crummy night -- we just had a layoff at work (I made the cut but some 
very good people didn't).  So the tone of this may be a little
 downbeat.


PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
> LOL I empathize... in all respects.
> 
> "Does that make us a self-evolving species?"  I dunno.

Humans "evolving" -- hah.  Let's think about this a little.

"Evolving" means changing over time, but it implies no value judgement.
 
  Tapeworms /evolved/ to get where they are.  Of course, you absolutely
 
must accept the notion that major traits -- such as intelligence and 
physical prowess (OK, pick nits, there are nuances to both of those) --
 
have their parameters determined by genetics rather than being totally,
 
100% plastic and controlled entirely by the environment; otherwise the 
whole issue vanishes in the mist.  (You'd also better be willing to
 drop 
vacuous notions like "all men are created equal" -- define "equal", 
define "created", and then we can talk about ways of testing the
 assertion.)

Classic Darwinian evolution results when there's /selection pressure/
 of 
some sort at work.  What sort of selection pressure is at work on
 humans?

"Selection pressure" => creatures with some particular set of traits 
have more offspring which grow up than creatures with different traits.
 
  What "selection pressure" might exist for modern humans?

Which groups have more offspring?

Which groups have fewer offspring?

Is it possible that there is any genetic basis at work in determining 
who is a member of which group?

What can we conclude from that?

C. M. Kornbluth asked these questions quite some decades ago, and came 
up with an answer which still looks pretty plausible.  And I'll let my 
comments go at that.  (I expect Jones will catch the reference, even if
 
nobody else does...)


>  Depending on 
> your standpoint, the whole thing could be meaningless.  For example,
 if 
> you know something about the Dalai Lama's background, where would you
 
> place him in the species?

How many children does the Dalai Lama have?  If he doesn't have any, 
then he's out of the running -- in the long view of things, he doesn't 
count.

Saddam Hussein doesn't count, either -- his "line" got dead-ended.

That guy who worked in a sperm bank and substituted his own semen for 
the stuff he was supposed to be handing out, now -- HE counts for a
 LOT; 
he's an example of an extremely successful creature.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

LOL I empathize... in all respects.

"Does that make us a self-evolving species?"  I dunno.  Depending on your 
standpoint, the whole thing could be meaningless.  For example, if you know 
something about the Dalai Lama's background, where would you place him in the 
species?

P.

- Original Message 
From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:45:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

Indeed, to me, evolution means change to deal with the environment.  It makes 
me wonder, as we largely control our environment these days, some of these 
"evolutionary" changes are in response to our own actions.  does that make us a 
self evolving species?


 

as for the selective breeding, we should get right on that.  ohh, the 
sacrifices some must make for science. 

 

(not me, as im getting married next sunday to a very jealous woman whos an 
excellent shot with a handgun. but others im sure would sacrifice in my place)

 

On 12/14/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Hah!  Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I define 
thinking.  That's another story.  Somebody took me to task (mildly for a 
change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But when the 
word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the works.  
Otherwise it would be devolution.


Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women) to 
know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's the 
secret. Perhaps that's all I should say...


P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?


 

Howdy Philip,

You are not being paid to think.   Breeding shows in horses, dogs and 
women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school or 
ghetto.

 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of "selective 
breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it?

Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip wrote,

 

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 
>15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
>France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
>wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
>a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
>evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  


"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to 
almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  


Just a thought.
 


 






-- 
That which yields isn't always weak. 

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hah!  Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I define 
thinking.  That's another story.  Somebody took me to task (mildly for a 
change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But when the 
word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the works.  
Otherwise it would be devolution.

Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women) to 
know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's the 
secret. Perhaps that's all I should say...

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

OT: Are humans evolving faster?

 
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}



 

Howdy Philip,

You are not being paid to think. 
  Breeding shows in horses, dogs and women. Go to any dog 
pound, college, welfare office, local high school or ghetto.

 Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent 
example of the result of "selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who 
would have thunk it?

Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip wrote,

 

>There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back 
about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in 
France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
a 
downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  


"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 
years to almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  

Just a 
thought.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 
15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in France 
- dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were 
wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on 
a downward trend?  According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - 
evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion.  

"Where is the evidence?" you say.  Well, it took only about 3000 years to 
almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans 
improving - depends on how you measure "improving."  

Just a thought.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:10:32 PM
Subject: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?

OT: Are humans evolving faster?







Published: 7 hours ago, 17:16 EST, December 10, 2007  





Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, 

not alike 



Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is 

speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had 

been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming 

increasingly different.



“We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, 

and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, 

especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says 

research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of 

anthropology at the University of Utah.



document.write(""); Harpending says there are provocative implications from 

the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences:



-- “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, 

which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking 

invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these 

are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is 

under strong genetic influence.”



-- “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes 

are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are 

unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging 

into a single, mixed humanity.” He says that is happening because humans 

dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, “and there has not 

been much flow of genes between the regions since then.”



“Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans 

[those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, 

have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show 

that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to 

millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental 

groups.”



The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 

10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new 

environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with a 

larger population, more mutations occurred.”



Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: “History looks more and more like a 

science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal 

humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, 

sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.”



Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, 

self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at 

the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah 

postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; 

geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and 

biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine.



No Justification for Discrimination



The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – 

Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a 

study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of 

northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval 

Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers 

and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had 

bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked 

to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.



That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose 

DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will 

undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and 

discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue 

culture plays a bigger r

Re: [Vo]:PreCog Proof

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Very interesting... 

"...our world is just one of a countless number of parallel universes..."  Have 
to add, "each one as unreal as the next."

Hui Neng - the Sixth Patriarch of Zen - summed it all up by saying, "From the 
first there is nothing."  The other thing is, that he talked about "no-mind" 
rather than "quantum mind."

It's good that intelligent people are thinking about thinking - or thinking 
about no-thinking perhaps.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:21:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:PreCog Proof

(I don't think this subject is OT.  -Terry)

{entire article attached due to difficulty in access. . . for list use
 only}

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43239

It's a Strange World: The Human as Living Time Machine

 Gary S. Bekkum
November 18, 2007
 "It's a strange world."

It's not hard to find well educated persons who believe they have
experienced a premonition of a future event.

Perhaps no one has a greater burden to bear than Chris Robinson, who
claims to be a "dream detective": a man who has learned to use his
prescient talent for predicting future events, by understanding coded
messages revealed in dreams.

Robinson reported dreaming of airplanes crashing into buildings just
prior to the events of September 11th, 2001.

Robinson's premonitions were the subject of tests conducted by Gary
E.R. Schwartz, at the University of Arizona, in the summer of 2001.

I was first introduced to Dr. Schwartz a year earlier, in a private
email discussion involving San Francisco physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti,
and his concept of a post-quantum theory of consciousness. Several
years passed before I heard of the "Arizona Experiments" Schwartz had
conducted with Mr. Robinson, a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Schwartz, a Professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry
and surgery at the University of Arizona and Director of the Human
Energy Systems Laboratory, had expressed an interest in how the mind
could access information "beyond space and time," something Sarfatti
knew required going outside of accepted theory. Sarfatti had proposed
a post-quantum theory based upon the work of the late Professor David
Bohm, and noted physicist Anthony Valentini had devised a theory which
allowed signals to travel faster than the speed of light.

Valentini's work, which is based on the pilot-wave interpretation of
quantum theory championed by the late David Bohm, predicted a new kind
of non-quantum matter, offering unique and almost magical properties.
Sarfatti proposed that the human mind -- the essence of the
consciousness experience -- operated "beyond space and time" in a way
similar to Valentini's non-quantum matter.

Dr. David Deutsch, at Oxford's Clarendon Laboratory, is a
world-renowned expert in quantum information theory. Deutsch is also
one of the most vocal and respected proponents of the Many Worlds
Interpretation of Quantum Theory: our world is just one of a countless
number of parallel universes. The idea sounds like science fiction,
but over time the Many Worlds emerged as one of the most
self-consistent explanations of what Quantum Theory tells us about the
nature of the world in which we exist. Quantum experiments produce
effects that some physicists interpret as interference from particles
in the parallel worlds. Many cosmologists, like Dr. Max Tegmark, who
studies the relationship between the vastness of the entire universe
and the physics of the smallest scales where Quantum Theory rules,
also find the idea of Many Worlds of Parallel Universes compelling.

Different interpretations of Quantum Theory compete with each other in
the minds of great thinkers. The idea of parallel universes does not
require new physics: the Many Worlds of Parallel Universes fall out of
currently accepted theory and experiment. Valentini's ideas are
theoretical: they predict the possibility of new physics, beyond the
current models. Sarfatti, and other proponents of "quantum mind"
explanations, claim that the experience of the human mind is evidence
of the need for new physics.

Chris Robinson claims the future comes to him at night, while he is
asleep. He has developed a system of recalling and interpreting his
nocturnal visions and records them as evidence that his mind is
accessing future events.

If Mr. Robinson's mind truly does reach out and grasp the future, what
are the implications for the nature of the human mind? More
importantly, is it possible to imagine a human time machine without
appealing to new physics?

Dr. Paul Werbos is a Program Director at the National Science
Foundation. One of Werbos' personal interests is the possibility that
Quantum Theory might allow for information to flow both forward and
backward in time. Werbos imagines a realistic single universe theory.
Dr. David Deutsch holds fast to the parallel universes idea: his view
is that pilot-wave theories, like D

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I think that means your worm is dead., not drunk.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:00:16 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models

On Nov 19, 2007 9:08 AM, R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Stick with cactus juice... it's the bottle with the little dead worm
> floating .

My worm is at the bottom of the bottle.  Is that a problem?

Terry

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Richard, I think you could easily vie with Yogi Berra for quotable quotes...

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:08:12 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models

Nick Palmer poster excerpt..

<

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

LOL


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:27:41 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models


Nick Palmer wrote..
 This topic was started off by Richard "Dime box" Macaulay looking for
 a
new economic model because of the increasing evidence that the current
 one
is deeply flawed. I hadn't got around to mentioning sustainable or
 green
economics which has been around for ages. I introduced the basics to
 our
local government's "chancellor" in  about 1990 - he hadn't heard about
 it
then. Everybody will eventually hear about it when the current
 financial
madness subsides.

Howdy Nick,

We are all painfully aware of the stop gap economic scenarios in use 
including the Green. In my post, mention was made of a new "Magi" ( as
 Jones 
would identify with Sir Isaac Newton) that could formulate a new
 economic 
model needed to address this new century's need for a  working
 structure. 
Right about now we could use an honest economic system.. as the Mafia
 came 
to realize in bygone days. After all, what lowdown crook would want his
 ill 
gotten gains stolen from him.

The current financial madness cannot subside because the world economic
 
engine lacks  a  a new  " roadmap"
.
It is extremely difficult to discuss theory with drug cartels that must
 
purchase New Holland farm machiney useful for bailing round bales of
  US 100 
dollar bills to store in their warehouse in Columbia because Euro banks
 
won't accept anything but Visa.
Another pressing problem rests with Syria,Lebanon and Hezbollah.
 printing 
counterfeit US 20 dollar bills to pay the local welfare folks in
 Lebanon for 
all the noise they made using their kids for bullet proof vests.
 Printing 
phoney US money was sorta dumb when you think about it. Now the only
 people 
taking that local phony money are the locals.. somebody is gonna be
 real put 
out when they try to make a bank deposit.. Arab banks are not stupid.

The grrandmother of all knockoffs is not China knockoffs of US
 products.. 
it's a trillion and a half worth of US dollars in their banks..and
 somebody 
just told them it's NOT counterfeit... now that was really low, cuz had
 it 
been phoney they would have recourse.. now they  just look foolish
 and 
what do they say about a Chinaman loosing face..


Regarding the Dime Box saloon
As my ole granny  Blanche Louise Townley ( a died in the wool Brit if
 ever 
was) would say.. never tell an Englishman a joke on Monday cuz he will
 get 
it next Sunday in church and upset the pastor. Most everyone in Vortex 
excepting the really dense understand that the Dime Box Saloon does not
 
allow English gentlemen inside unless accompanied by a Scots. So make 
friends with Philip of Glasgow.
Some may claim that the Dime Box is just an imaginary cyber saloon..
 but it 
often takes the edge off harsh in the room.. so let's all be gentlemen.

Richard 

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Horace, I appreciate what you're saying,and I agree that open discussion is the 
only way to go.  In fact its the irrationality and bullying rampant in what 
passes today for "rational discussion" which is what made me say what I said; I 
don't say things just to be spectacular.  The end result of losing energy 
resources is, as you know, major unemployment, and a catastrophic decline in 
lifestyle.  On the other hand, as I mentioned (something that was, of course, 
completely ignored) there are human beings - our neighbours, so to speak - who 
would benefit greatly from the employment offered from coal mining and 
processing, the alternative to sending money out to the Middle East; money 
that's often used for dubious purposes.

Having said all that, I really don't want to open this ugly letter for all to 
read.  From my standpoint, Mr. Palmer, who contributes regularly here, 
obviously has his own problems to contend with without our adding to them.

And I'm not easily bullied.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:44:39 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models


On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Nick Palmer wrote:

> Philip Winestone ranted
> < crowd" don't want us burning ANYTHING, so the proposal to dig up  
> coal and use if for ANYTHING will be met with fierce resistance,  
> mostly by bigmouths.>>
>
> See the very latest report from the IPCC released a day or so ago.  
> The scientists are feeling more free to speak almost the full truth  
> now that the politically inspired (translation: insane stupidity)  
> watering down and sabotage is weakening.  Fear for your future.  
> Consider who the truly smart people are - those like you who keep  
> on coming out with an irresponsible, irrational viewpoint decades  
> after the clever people realised the forthcoming problems and the  
> obvious solutions and let the rest of the world know. I really have  
> had it up to here with this public display of intransigence,  
> obstructionism and inability to realise who is at fault.

While I probably agree with many of your viewpoints, I find your  
attitude with regard to free speech troubling.


>
> BTW, I sent the uncensored version of this posting directly to  
> Winestone - it was rather a lot stronger...


I think we ought to see this email.  Bullying emails attempting to  
squelch free speech, if that is indeed the kind that was sent to  
Philip Winestone, are not something that should not be either kept  
quiet or tolerated.



On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Nick Palmer wrote:
> Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are  
> still desequestrating fossil carbon. If you think this is a good  
> idea then you don't understand the situation. If you don't  
> understand the situation we are in, it is your duty to humanity to  
> shut up!

Discussion of these issues is the only way consensus building can  
ever occur.  Though my personal preference is to discuss how to solve  
energy issues, rather than why, it strikes me as both on topic and  
useful for those who wish to engage in discussions of energy policy  
to do so freely.

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

EXACTLY my point of view; buying time for LENR to happen without falling under 
the curse of OPEC.

P.
.

- Original Message 
From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:33:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models

--- Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make
biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting
biomass is never burned.

Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the
bottom line - but if you want to get extremely
precise, then you must admit that if biofuel, made
from CO2-fed algae in round one, is then burned in the
second round in the same kind of situation where the
exhaust is also recycled to make more biofuel, ad
infinitum, then long-term neutrality could attach.

One could envision a smalled capacity grid-plant
situated on a flooded desert, out there in the wilds
of New Mexico, where the CO2 is looped over-and-over
with algae, for carbon neutrality, or close to it,
over time 

- but - returning to the issue of practical solutions,
even if we get only one generation of neutrality -
then  that is superior to the present state of
affairs, no?

We need to eliminate carbon as a longer term goal
ABSOLUTELY true, no argument there, but we also need
practical stopgap measure that can "buy time" (perhaps
time for your LENR breakthrough ;-) ...

...and at the same time eliminate the sword of OPEC
hanging over our collective necks.

Jones

Re: [VO]:Brown's Gas Hydrogen to steam

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Now THAT's interesting...

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:14:58 PM
Subject: [VO]:Brown's Gas Hydrogen to steam

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



Looking at some of the applications for Brown's gas including metal 
cuttting can excite the imagination considerig the temperature achieved in 
burning the gas. Could a variation of the Brown's gas be used in steam 
generation? Thinking  out an atomizer type ejector system firing a steady 
flow of atomized water and ignited gas directionally with the flame. Could the 
result be superheated steam in a suitable containment vessel. A turbine engine 
run on this steam output could connect to a generator to produce electric 
power.

The question .. can a sufficent quanity of hydrogen gas be produced from a 
combination of excess heat and electricity to self sustain the cycle and yet 
offer excess electric power sufficent to drive a vehicle ?

Shades of Stanley's Steamer.. I could have fun driving up to the Dime Box 
saloon. 

Richard

 

Re: [VO]: Economic models -- Kondrateiff peak war

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Yes the word "greed" is most appropriate.  Oddly enough, when I think about the 
"oil gang" and its greed, I don't so much think of the oil companies 
themselves, who do put money, time and effort into getting the stuff out of the 
ground and processing it (don't all shout at me at once!!!), I think more of 
the recipients of all the hangers-on in just about every government in the 
world, who by feeding at the trough of trillions are doing the rest of the 
world a disservice... to say the least.

Unfortunately there don't appear to be many in the political world who can 
resist increasing their bank balances substantially, but those who (apparently) 
do, sure stand out.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Taylor J. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:51:47 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models -- Kondrateiff peak war


Jones wrote:

``... Of course the same process can be taken a step further,
to produce methanol on a large scale. Not only are the
emissions of this syn-gas plant on Florida well below
regulatory limits - it is one of the cleanest coal-based
power plants in the world - since the sulfur content of
the coal is easily removed and then used as raw material
for fertilizer - that is WIN-WIN folks ...

The U.S. DoE estimates 2.45 billion tons a year of biomass
Ag and municipal waste are available for alternative fuel
production, counting saw dust. One ton can be converted to
185 gallons of methanol, so that about 500 billion gallons
and at $2 gallon ...

... whoa... could that be correct? A trillion $$ economic
bonanza to the American farmer and small businessman
(hopefully we can keep most of big oil OUT of this party),
instead of arming our enemies!

Move over Saudi thugs ... the American entrepreneur is
about ready to eat your lunch...''

Hi All,

Methanol is probably our way out of the Kazakh War of 2020,
just a little more than 12 years from now.  The greed
of the Oil Gang, if we don't do something about it, will
plunge us into a destruction that will make the sub-prime
crisis look like a Sunday-school picnic.  Also, push now
for commuter rail so we have so way to get around when
the Straits of Hormuz are blocked and every pipeline in
the Middle East is blown up.

Jack Smith

Re: [Vo]:Garage scientist aims to thwart OPEC

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Jed,

Yes... when I sent my email to the journalist in question, I was very careful 
to avoid talking about, or knocking the work, that this chap is doing out in 
the west of Canada.  I don't think it pays to malign other people's work, 
unless they go over the top and start unreasonably maligning your work... in 
which case the facts from several decades of expenditure on "hot fusion" would 
speak for themselves,as you indicate.

P.

- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 1:51:37 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Garage scientist aims to thwart OPEC

See:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=2785016f-0338-4253-b594-aeee1ca49385&k=57937

"Garage scientist aims to thwart OPEC

Cold fusion would solve world's energy woes. Trouble is no one so far 
has made it work"

I think this is plasma fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I read that in the Post this morning.  I don't know how viable this is, but I 
wish Dr. Laberge lots of luck.  Seriously.

I wrote to the writer of the article, pointing him in the direction of Cold 
Fusion, if only to make him aware that there's lots of other interesting work 
going on in the energy world right now.

P.


- Original Message 
From: DonW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 1:11:42 PM
Subject: [Vo]:General Fusion

A interesting small company .. From the "OTHER" side of the Fusion coin
-DonW-

General Fusion is working on a new, patent pending concept based on a
 recent
development in fusion research called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF).
 MTF
has been building momentum in the fusion community for a few years now.
 It
is the goal of General Fusion to demonstrate this new clean, safe and
economical concept by 2010.

http://www.generalfusion.com/

Management Team:
http://www.generalfusion.com/management_team.php

Tucked away in the back corner of an old mattress warehouse in this
Vancouver suburb sits a silver sphere not much larger than a human
 head.
Like some mad inventor's futuristic Chia pet, it sprouts numerous wires
 that
lead to banks of capacitors, batteries capable of delivering their
 charge at
lightning speed.

It could easily pass for a school science project from some overly keen
 teen
-- complete with its very own home-made flourishes, like a particle
 detector
hidden inside a stovepipe and held together with black electrical tape.

But if this is a science project -- and in many ways that is what it is
 for
Michel Laberge, the 40-something PhD who has spent five years building
 and
perfecting it -- it is among the most ambitious ever conceived. This
 modest
assemblage of wires and dreams is in fact a home-brew nuclear-fusion
 reactor
-- if reactor is the right word to describe a device that has in the
 past
few years achieved a micro-second's worth of miniscule energy output
 just
seven times.

Michel Laberge, the 40-something PhD, has spent five years building and
perfecting his nuclear fusion device.

But for Mr. Laberge, a slightly dishevelled Quebecer who built his
 fusion
device in an old gas station on an island near Vancouver, it is the
prototype for something enormous -- something that, in his words, "will
actually save the planet."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=2785016f-0338
-4253-b594-aeee1ca49385&k=57937

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Jones - 

Not sure if stone-age is appropriate; don't know if stone-age people justified 
what they did with pretensions to holiness... Don't get me started...

I'm a great fan of minimalism, and to me the methanol conversion process, which 
includes energy-sucking distillation processes, is no doubt a tad less 
efficient than the direct-to-gas process.  I had some experience of an 
interesting fluidized-bed gasification process that used gasified waste wood 
(bark, sawdust, etc.) to power the enormous dryers in a particular wood 
processing plant.  Very impressive; highly effective.

>From what I gather - and my knowledge is somewhat peripheral - huge 
>technological leaps have been made in fluidized-bed processing of coal, so 
>it's not a stretch to use what apparently is enormous resources.  Then there's 
>the miners.  A few years ago I visited Nova Scotia and sat at a table next to 
>a bunch of ex-miners (the company had closed the mine down creating an giant 
>employment wasteland).  Even the oldest one at the table - a white-haired old 
>gentleman - told me he wouldn't hesitate to go down the mine with "the guys" 
>if they reopened the mine.  Said he loved it - all the camaraderie...

So win-win is on another basis: we make the Saudis et al  (and their North 
American political associates) less wealthy and thus less powerful, and we give 
lots of jobs to local men who need the work.  The other thing is, of course, 
that we keep the money we pay for the coal and the associated processes, inside 
the country. (I also drive a North American car!)

One of the problems is that we rely far too much on government blessings and 
money before undertaking technical projects.  This should be a simple business 
investment decision; their are enough government regulations regarding 
pollution and safety that will no doubt take care of those things, so people 
don't have to fret about them.

It's just a matter of DOING it, as some already have, to their credit, not 
endlessly talking about it.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:42:16 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models

PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> You don't even have to convert coal to methanol... When you consider
 how 
> much energy is used by many manufacturing processes, to name but one 
> major energy using sector, converting them from, say natural gas or
 oil 
> would make a huge dent in overall energy usage. 

> I don't know about North America, but where I came from - the UK - 
> everyone, domestic and industrial - used coal gas.

This is also done in the USA but to a lesser extent. A major grid 
powerplant in Tampa, Florida, converts coal to syn-gas on a very large 
scale. This process does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
 
until the gas is utilized as fuel for gas turbine electric generators 
and then the exhaust is as clean as natural gas.

... which, as you say, will not please everyone. But the green movement
 
needs a big dose of reality therapy, on occasion.

Of course the same process can be taken a step further, to produce 
methanol on a large scale. Not only are the emissions of this syn-gas 
plant on Florida well below regulatory limits - it is one of the 
cleanest coal-based power plants in the world - since the sulfur
 content 
of the coal is easily removed and then used as raw material for 
fertilizer - that is WIN-WIN folks.

In Kingsport, Tennessee, a plant participating in the Department of 
Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program combines both processes, for 
clean mass production of methanol from coal at under $0.50 a gallon.

However, that price is well below most estimates I have seen for new 
coal-to-methanol facilities.

But it indicates that all this scheme requires - is "political 
willpower" (and the cooperation of the green movement). That is why it 
is surprising that it is a non-issue so far in the USA.

Biomass and Ag waste and sawdust can be converted to syn-gas by a 
similar process (partial oxidation) which is later converted to 
methanol. In fact the original name "wood alcohol" derives from the 
sawdust conversion method.

Fred Sparber has often mentioned his work on a manure to syn-gas plant,
 
which would be very cost effective today, even if ten years ago it was 
marginal.

The U.S. DoE estimates 2.45 billion tons a year of biomass Ag and 
municipal waste are available for alternative fuel production, counting
 
saw dust. One ton can be converted to 185 gallons of methanol, so that 
about 500 billion gallons and at $2 gallon ...

... whoa... could that be correct? A trillion $$ economic bonanza to
 the 
American farmer and small businessman (hopefully we can keep most of
 big 
oil OUT of this party), instead of arming our enemies!

Move over Saudi thugs ... the American entrep

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

You don't even have to convert coal to methanol... When you consider how much 
energy is used by many manufacturing processes, to name but one major energy 
using sector, converting them from, say natural gas or oil would make a huge 
dent in overall energy usage.  

I don't know about North America, but where I came from - the UK - everyone, 
domestic and industrial - used coal gas.  The method of creating coal gas it 
extremely simple, and while it was known to be a dirty process, especially its 
storage, which was done in huge low pressure dome-like structures called 
"gasometers," I'm pretty certain that nowadays we could do much better in that 
respect.  And I'm  reasonably certain that coal gas could be produced 
relatively inexpensively; just a hunch. The gas was also quite poisonous - 
containing a high proportion of carbon monoxide, but that was not reckoned to 
be a problem by those who used it, which was just about everyone.

The main problem, as I believe we all know, is that the "green crowd" don't 
want us burning ANYTHING, so the proposal to dig up coal and use if for 
ANYTHING will be met with fierce resistance, mostly by bigmouths.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:23:04 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Economic models

Well, I ordered the book based on the less than enthusiastic (first) 
review on the Amazon site. The economic ideas seems rather logical, but
 
perhaps too idealist and remote for use in actual decision making, as 
opposed to practical solutions to present problems.

Speaking of practicality - has any economist ever done a computer model
 
of whether - and most of all - at what price the USA would be better 
off, as a last resort to eliminate out reliance on Arab oil, by 
converting our massive coal supplies to methanol ?

Let's say we can supply 30% of our needs in the USA with domestic oil. 
We definitely have the coal resources, and the technology to supply the
 
other 70% with coal-based methanol, but it would be at a higher cost. 
How high a cost is doable? Can we factor in the cost of being less 
dependent on our sworn-enemies as part of the formula ?

If oil is at $80-100 per barrel, and and the equivalent energy from
 coal 
based methanol costs $150 - then by the time we could build 20-50 large
 
conversion plants in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska etc. the 
price of OPEC crude would be even more.

But Catch-22 - in so doing, the increased supply of oil on the world 
market would force the price of that crude back down. So our economic 
competitors (China) become prime beneficiaries.

Nevertheless - this is such an attractive proposition from a number of 
different perspectives (eliminating the temptation of Oil-Wars) that it
 
is surprising that one of the Candidates has not jumped on it.

Jones


Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
> Eric Beinhocker examines a new model for economics in THE ORIGIN OF 
> WEALTH: The Radical Remaking of Economics and What It Means for
 Business 
> and Society. Pretty provocative and it may answer Richard’s
 criterion.
> 
> Good weekend, all.

Re: [VO]: Economic models

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Are you having as good a weekend as I think you are Richard?

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:35:29 AM
Subject: [VO]: Economic models

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



Howdy Vorts,

 

Watching the world financials try to function can give one pause. There is 
a problem. 

 

The world has been operating on model based on a quasi-Keynesian theory of 
economics since FDR's New Deal of the 1930's. That model served until JFK paid 
his debt to big labor and LBJ used credit to finance Vietnam instead of taxes. 
The US debt overload plus the beginning of rise of the world enonomy forced a 
reshuffle by Nixon off the traditional peg of the US dollar to gold at $ 35 
dollars/troy ounce gold.

 

 Since the Civil War ended in 1865, the nation has had three weak 
models prior to the Keynesian.The Keynesian economic model was effectively 
obsoleted at that time in 1973.

 

 The instability in the financial markets we are experiencing can be 
blamed on a host of causes.. but .. at the root.. the reason is the lack of a 
new model theory.

 

An Isaac Newton of money theory could rise.. or .. a Ghengis Kahn.. we will 
know soon after the 2008 election.. if we have another election.

 

Richard

Re: [Vo]:Fractional quantum states

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I've been considering what I see as the "anomalous" behaviour of hydrogen, ever 
since I watched (from a distance of about 24 inches) a firebrick melting after 
a hydrogen flame was applied to it for about 10 seconds.  This was a 
demonstration of something called "Brown's Gas," which was apparently simply 
monatomic hydrogen created by simple electrolysis.

I have no idea of the measured thermodynamics of the process behind the melting 
of this type of material with the application of a relatively small amount of 
hydrogen gas; I only know what I saw.  I also saw someone passing his hands 
through this same flame, quite slowly, with no ill effects.

Could this possibly be a feature of what is being discussed in this thread?

Is is possible that an OU condition can be obtained simply by having a 
monatomic hydrogen/oxygen flame impinge on certain "hard"  inorganic materials?

P.



- Original Message 
From: Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:43:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fractional quantum states


On Nov 9, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Mark Goldes wrote:

> Jones,
>
> If you did not look at the paper by Ron Bourgoin in the latest NET,  
> you will want to do so.

This appears to refer to:

http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2007BourgoinR-InverseQuantum.pdf

>
> It reflects the insight by the late Dr. Robert Carroll into  
> fractional quantum states long before Mills surfaced.


The above paper only states: "Acknowledgements: The author’s interest
  
in inverse quantum states began when he
was an undergraduate student of Professor Robert L. Carroll of  
Fairmont, West Virginia (1910-1997)."  It doesn't reference any  
papers by Carroll, or give any evidence Carroll's work on fractional  
quantum states preceded Mills' work that I can see.   Do you know of  
any Carroll papers or other evidence of Carroll's work preceding  
Mills' in this area?  I guess it is important to know when Bourgoin  
studied under Carroll.  Mills has been at the fractional quantum  
state thing a long time.

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Um... The scientific/rational side of me says "What?"

The non-rational (intuitive) side of me says, "What.?"

Two different "whats".  So there's your answer.

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:13:28 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR



 
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}



 Philip wrote..

 

>In fact we all do it; when we meet someone, we know almost immediately 
who or what we're dealing with, although we >more often than not deny what 
we're seeing or hide from it.
>Human 
stuff.


 

Howdy Philip and Bill,

 

Been an interesting and revealing thread.  
Remember I was born three generations back.

Let me add a thought that touches on the " third 
rail" and can get me in all kinds of trouble...

 

women in the work place and positions of 
authority. 

 

Background.. it has only been this generation 
that has experienced a situation where women are in leadership positions in 
business, law and government. 

 

Has this resulted in a change in the dynamic of 
interaction between men in the scientific realm for the better or 
worse?

 

Richard

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I like your approach. (Incidentally I've been a martial arts person for 
countless years.)

But I must say that the chances of "cleaning out the psychogical crap" are 
essentially nil.  But we can begin to see who or what has this psychological 
crap not that there's anything wrong with having it in the first place; Who 
makes the rules anyway?

The "best" way is to simply use intellect and intuition in tandem, act on it, 
and see what comes of it.  The cop with integrity does this.  In fact we all do 
it; when we meet someone, we know almost immediately who or what we're dealing 
with, although we more often than not deny what we're seeing or hide from it.

Human stuff.

P.


- Original Message 
From: William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:58:57 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> Nice stuff... But kind of circular...

Nah, it's more like martial arts technique.  :)

See what needs doing, see from all angles simultaneously, then go knock
heads together as needed.

I've gone through the stages of:  1. being an
asshole who attacks the wrong people, 2. being too self-critical and
guilt-ridden to take any actions at all, 3. accumulating some evidence
that my currently planned actions would have been the right thing to do,
4. actually finding that I can take action and do some good without messing
things up.


> So in fact there's nothing to do; no action that can be taken.  Because
> every action and/or judgment is automatically suspect from any number of
> standpoints.

And so we all have to clean out our psychological crap that distorts our
view of the world, THEN do whatever needs doing.  Analogy: a corrupt cop
will probably jail innocent people while for some reason ignoring
fellow criminals.  But a cop with some integrity will have very little
trouble leaping to the right conclusion and leaping into action.


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci







(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci







(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

LOL!!

- Original Message 
From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 11:46:24 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

A one leg tripod footed in quicksands... m... we are not there yet ;-)

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR


> 
> Michel wrote..
>>Empathy ("Identification with and understanding of another's situation, 
>>feelings, and motives") with your contradictor, which >Bill recommends if I 
>>understand correctly, doesn't prevent action I don't think. The word 
>>'intelligence' (as in 'Intelligence >Service') also comes to mind.
> 
> Howdy Michel,
> 
> What have we learned so far.???.. the first pier( leg) of the tripod is must 
> be set firmly in a foundation of human fraility.
> This fraility can be challenged to excellence or allowed to degenerate into 
> depravity. Over the past 3000 years, the great writers provided some 
> excellent  words to  mankind that offer footing in the quicksands of life.. 
> provided we are careful where we place our steps. That becomes the real 
> challenge for Vorts.. not only to move forward wisely .. but.. to challenge 
> and encourage people in key roles of the energy equation. A  soft word turns 
> away wrath.
> 
> Richard
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

The overriding questions are, "Who or what is identifying/understanding?" and 
"What exactly is intelligence (and by implication, again, who or what has it?)?

P.


- Original Message 
From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 10:23:25 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

Empathy ("Identification with and understanding of another's situation, 
feelings, and motives") with your contradictor, which Bill recommends if I 
understand correctly, doesn't prevent action I don't think. The word 
'intelligence' (as in 'Intelligence Service') also comes to mind.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "PHILIP WINESTONE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR


Nice stuff... But kind of circular...

So in fact there's nothing to do; no action that can be taken.  Because every 
action and/or judgment is automatically suspect from any number of standpoints.

P.


- Original Message 
From: William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 9:50:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> How about "refuse to tolerate all conscious dishonesty in ourselves"?
> We all lie to ourselves - mostly unconsciously - about a myriad of
> things... something I won't get into in detail, but perhaps worthy of
> some thought.

But this is about being a scientist, not about everyday life.  It's the
Feynman philosophy from "Cargo Cult Science:" when being a scientist we
must adopt a stance of extreme bend-over-backwards honesty...  but it
would drive us crazy to keep that stance all the time.  And on the other
hand, if we let the acceptible dishonesty of everyday life invade our
science work, then we're transformed into crackpots who would rather win
a fight than find out what's true.


> My own view of life, including the LENR fiasco (back to LENR), is that
> there's nothing worse than someone who is being CONSCIOUSLY dishonest,

But to know this, you have to read their minds!

All you can really see is their dishonesty.  If you attack them for it,
and it turns out to be unconcious dishonesty on their part, your attack
will seem motivated by spontaneous malice (since your dishonest victim is
relatively clueless about their dishonesty.)  And so your attack will
simply convince your opponent that you are an evil person.  It will have
no effect whatsoever upon their unconscious dishonesty.


> who tries to sell this dishonesty to others, as honesty, by whatever
> means and for whatever reasons.

If their dishonesty is unconscious, then that person is not trying to
delude others, instead they're simply trying to promote their beliefs, and
they have little clue that they're actually spreading lies.

All this is why we need to maintain lots of self-criticism and compassion.
I DON'T mean that we should give up the fight.  Instead I mean that, if we
find our opponents disgusting, then probably we have some serious personal
problems and should bow out of the fight.

In other words, today it's no longer cool to hate ethnic minorities, or to
hate people of different religions...  but boy do we hate the CF Skeptics,
and ascribe all sorts of disgusting malicious behavior to them.  And they
do the same thing: subtle hate-speech against CF supporters.  They're
barely even human, right?  But only because we've dehumanized them...
just like a racists and antisemites must dehumanize their victims.
They've used "ethnics slurs" to dehumanize, calling us "woo woos," and we
either adopt their slurs as our proud lables, or we try to construct our
own dehumanizing slurs in return.

Jed describes an anti-CF rally, where the group was delightedly talking
about destroying the careers of CF people.  How is this so different from
a bunch of racist scientists happily fantacizing about destroying the
careers of blacks or hispanics?  It's not.  They're using the same tools
which were used against ethnic minorities.  It's one group drumming up
hatred for another. Heh.  Those CF skeptics, you'd never let your daughter
marry one, and if a bunch of them got jobs where you work, or if they
moved into your neighborhood, you'd have to take action! (And many of the
skeptics, they think the same of us: that we're not even quite human, that
we're INTENTIONALLY DISHONESTLY supporting CF for malicious reasons, since
all of us of course are certainly aware that CF is bogus, right?)

That's where the compassionate stance comes in.  It's hard to hate someone
if you understand them.  To avoid decending to the level of a "CF-bigot"
we must refuse to view CF critic

Re: [VO]:WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE Picasso

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Interesting... Picasso's portrayal of himself publicly was, from what I've 
heard, quiet different from what he really felt... which coincidentally is 
exactly what that quote is about.  And of course if Picasso's real intention 
was to play his "admirers" like a fly fisherman; to soak them for their various 
vanities, he would always have to come across publicly as their "beloved 
Picasso". As I said in my last note, I've always felt that as time went on, 
Picasso really did many, many "silly" works.  His cubist works - particularly 
his initial ones - were quite outstanding (I feel he owed a great deal to 
Braque for this), but as time went on. sillier and sillier.  Eventually he 
could pee on a wall and some rich guy would come along and buy the wall...

Sometimes a novel is a very useful tool for disclosing reality... Just 
speculating of course.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 9:16:21 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]:WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE Picasso

The Picasso quote appears to be a piece of _fiction_.  Picasso never 
said it.


I couldn't believe the quote when I saw it -- it goes against everything 
I've read about how Picasso portrayed himself, at least publicly.  I dug 
around on the web a bit, found the quote repeated a lot without any 
context which would indicate whether it was for-real or not ... until I 
finally came across this page, which actually gives the source of the quote:

http://www.peacasso.com/Pablo_Confess.asp

The quote is from a book, "Libro Nero", by Giovanni Papini.  The site 
has this explanatory footnote on the quote:

> Please note that a viewer of this web site was kind enough to obtain
> confirmation from Antonio D'Amicis of www.giovannipapini.it that Il
> Libro Nero is a work of fiction. The interview never really happened.
> However, I still like it and think Master P is probably "out there
> somewhere" laughing his xxx off at all of this. Just my opinion,
> nothing more.

Papini was a novelist and "Libro Nero" appears to be a novel.  The quote 
is from an interview which takes place in the novel.


R.C.Macaulay wrote:
>  
> 
> 
>   WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE
> 
>  
> 
> “From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, 
> the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the 
> intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to 
> receive consolation and exaltation from art.  The  
> ‘refined’, the rich, the professional  ‘do-nothings’, the distillers of 
> quintessence desire only the peculiar; the sensational, the eccentric , 
> the scandalous in today’s art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, 
> have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with 
> all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they 
> understand them, the more they admire me. Through amusing myself with 
> all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, I am rich. But when I am 
> alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, 
> not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, 
> Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown_ a mountebank. I have 
> understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the 
> greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession 
> of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does 
> have the merit of being honest.”
> 
>  
> 
> Pablo Picasso, 1952
> 

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Nice stuff... But kind of circular...

So in fact there's nothing to do; no action that can be taken.  Because every 
action and/or judgment is automatically suspect from any number of standpoints.

P.


- Original Message 
From: William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 9:50:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

> How about "refuse to tolerate all conscious dishonesty in ourselves"?
> We all lie to ourselves - mostly unconsciously - about a myriad of
> things... something I won't get into in detail, but perhaps worthy of
> some thought.

But this is about being a scientist, not about everyday life.  It's the
Feynman philosophy from "Cargo Cult Science:" when being a scientist we
must adopt a stance of extreme bend-over-backwards honesty...  but it
would drive us crazy to keep that stance all the time.  And on the other
hand, if we let the acceptible dishonesty of everyday life invade our
science work, then we're transformed into crackpots who would rather win
a fight than find out what's true.


> My own view of life, including the LENR fiasco (back to LENR), is that
> there's nothing worse than someone who is being CONSCIOUSLY dishonest,

But to know this, you have to read their minds!

All you can really see is their dishonesty.  If you attack them for it,
and it turns out to be unconcious dishonesty on their part, your attack
will seem motivated by spontaneous malice (since your dishonest victim is
relatively clueless about their dishonesty.)  And so your attack will
simply convince your opponent that you are an evil person.  It will have
no effect whatsoever upon their unconscious dishonesty.


> who tries to sell this dishonesty to others, as honesty, by whatever
> means and for whatever reasons.

If their dishonesty is unconscious, then that person is not trying to
delude others, instead they're simply trying to promote their beliefs, and
they have little clue that they're actually spreading lies.

All this is why we need to maintain lots of self-criticism and compassion.
I DON'T mean that we should give up the fight.  Instead I mean that, if we
find our opponents disgusting, then probably we have some serious personal
problems and should bow out of the fight.

In other words, today it's no longer cool to hate ethnic minorities, or to
hate people of different religions...  but boy do we hate the CF Skeptics,
and ascribe all sorts of disgusting malicious behavior to them.  And they
do the same thing: subtle hate-speech against CF supporters.  They're
barely even human, right?  But only because we've dehumanized them...
just like a racists and antisemites must dehumanize their victims.
They've used "ethnics slurs" to dehumanize, calling us "woo woos," and we
either adopt their slurs as our proud lables, or we try to construct our
own dehumanizing slurs in return.

Jed describes an anti-CF rally, where the group was delightedly talking
about destroying the careers of CF people.  How is this so different from
a bunch of racist scientists happily fantacizing about destroying the
careers of blacks or hispanics?  It's not.  They're using the same tools
which were used against ethnic minorities.  It's one group drumming up
hatred for another. Heh.  Those CF skeptics, you'd never let your daughter
marry one, and if a bunch of them got jobs where you work, or if they
moved into your neighborhood, you'd have to take action! (And many of the
skeptics, they think the same of us: that we're not even quite human, that
we're INTENTIONALLY DISHONESTLY supporting CF for malicious reasons, since
all of us of course are certainly aware that CF is bogus, right?)

That's where the compassionate stance comes in.  It's hard to hate someone
if you understand them.  To avoid decending to the level of a "CF-bigot"
we must refuse to view CF critics as an inferior group, a group where the
world would be a better place if they could all somehow be removed or
silenced.


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci







(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [VO]:WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE Picasso

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

As a person who does some painting, drawing, etc., I only have to look around 
to attest to what Picasso was talking about; looks like most of today's artists 
never read this piece... a piece which takes my breath away.  I have a two-book 
set on Picasso; the first book I devoured with great relish, but the second, 
his later period, I literally can't even open...

Not sure how many artists would have the guts to say what he said in this piece.

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 7:11:47 PM
Subject: [VO]:WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE Picasso

WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE


 
 
 
 
 









 
 

WEAPON OF INDIFFERENCE

 
 

“From
the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can
use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most
people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from
art. 
The  ‘refined’, the rich,
the professional  ‘do-nothings’,
the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar; the sensational, the
eccentric , the scandalous in today’s art. I myself, since the advent of
Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics
with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind. The less they
understand them, the more they admire me. Through amusing myself with all these
absurd farces, I became celebrated, I am rich. But when I am alone, I do not
have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old
meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am
only a public clown_ a mountebank. I have understood my time and have exploited
the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter
confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at
least and at last it does have the merit of being honest.”


 
 

Pablo
Picasso, 1952
 

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Well I tried to say it in a few different ways.  The simple answer is that we 
have to do battle with those who deliberately (consciously) lie, and 
furthermore, who deliberately try to convince others that their lies are in 
fact truths.

This has nothing to do with motes or logs or whatever, which are more to do 
with seeing one's own inner psychological (in a true sense) faults as opposed 
to judging others' apparent inner faults.  Continuous self-audit - the work of 
the Observer - can be done continuously in one's own time, without considering 
so-called others... even while we are considering what is apparently LENR.

We've all seen the anti-LENR lies; why waste time agonizing over the 
perpetrators of these lies?

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 10:23:15 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR



 
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}



Howdy Vorts,

 

So I gather from Philip and Bill that demanding a 
continious self audit is a prerequisite to characterizing the intellectual 
integrity of others. 

This is interesting because, from these comments 
we discover that we cannot go further until the first pier of the tripod is 
firmly anchored, and an awareness that we can be both,our own worse enemy as 
well as remain blind to what can otherwise be progressive steps in the 
science of LENR.

Within the minds of some in this group, an active 
imagination may be stimulated and a profound idea rise that can become 
invaluable in this progress.

Place thinking caps on and continue. Lets not get 
past the first pier until it's full implication is understood.

 

Richard

 

 

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

How about "refuse to tolerate all conscious dishonesty in ourselves"?

We all lie to ourselves - mostly unconsciously - about a myriad of things... 
something I won't get into in detail, but perhaps worthy of some thought.  

My own view of life, including the LENR fiasco (back to LENR), is that there's 
nothing worse than someone who is being CONSCIOUSLY dishonest, and who tries to 
sell this dishonesty to others, as honesty, by whatever means and for whatever 
reasons.

P.  

- Original Message 
From: William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 9:32:16 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, R.C.Macaulay wrote:

> The first pier must be intellectual honesty, identify the minimum two
> other piers.

Ah, but the first one has two parts:

  1. Refuse to tolerate intellectual dishonesty in yourself.
(The mote in your own eye can cause you to mistakenly see large
 logs in the eyes of others.)

  2. Refuse to tolerate intellectual dishonesty in others... but
 also remain careful to maintain some compassion.  Play the role
 of the tough sympathetic policeman, not the arrogant flamer.


The worse sort of "skeptics" are those who direct brutal criticism only
at others, not at themselves.

  ...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its
  polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the
  truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines
  are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to
  hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message
  across. It condemns us to permanent minority status. - Carl Sagan


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Courteously? The response is often a mirror of the original attack; perhaps 
slightly less (or more) so.  Since most attacks on LENR that I've seen over the 
years, have been both thoroughly dishonest and thoroughly discourteous, I stand 
by my original "blunt and ruthless" (but nonetheless honest) response. Nothing 
turns a  bully off (and the cases against LENR have been, in very simple terms, 
bullying) than the fear of this type of retribution.  Full credit goes to those 
who have responded to this bullying in kind... and there are, happily, quite a 
few such people - scientists and others.

[With deference to Sun Tzu.]

P.
.
- Original Message 
From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2007 5:44:50 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Tripod base required for LENR

Mmm, if I understand your three contributions correctly you still have only one 
pier to stand on, your first pier of intellectual honesty...

To expand on this first pier, obviously very important, I agree with Terry's 
remark, but only to the extent that the measurement, as presented by the 
experimenter, isn't found to suffer from an erroneous calculation. If one finds 
such one should report it, as a matter of mutual help, and the recipient of the 
correction should acknowledge with thanks. However it is best if the corrector 
takes the time to do this courteously, which I for one must admit I haven't 
been very good at in all circumstances.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR


> This group overshadows others in the cultivating of an intellectual honesty 
> toward candid discussion of the technical merits, pitfalls  and 
> inspirational hopes for various  new forms of energy.
> New energy is an essential for the future and will be achieved by preparing 
> a solid foundation, a minimum of three legs, a  tripod base if you will.
> The first pier must be  intellectual honesty, identify the minimum two other 
> piers
> Richard
> 
> I'm assuming that this pier includes the will to confront intellectual 
> dishonesty and graft in very blunt terms, if necessary.  Once the "attack" 
> is made, the "counter-attack" should be focused and ruthless.  Still 
> thinking...
> Philip W.
> 
> Open and free discussion is certainly a necessity.  One must not allow those 
> ideas which one considers to be true to cloud the ability to consider that 
> the idea might need refinement or, indeed, be flawed. If a claimant says 
> that a measurement was taken a certain way and was verified by others, a 
> sceptic who is not a party to the experiment has no right to claim that the 
> measurement is in error without observation or replication of the exact 
> experiment.
> Terry
> 
> Howdy Vorts,
> When I started this thread I was searching a thought I had. After reading 
> these two responses I have considered that both  have a particular 
> insightful clue as to the solution to how to turn the curve in LENR.
> If correct,  the further responses by others will confirm and a pattern 
> will emerge. Never underestimate the power of  thoughtfully expressed 
> collective dialogue for others to ponder.
> Richard 
>

Re: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Richard, I'm assuming that this pier includes the will to confront intellectual 
dishonesty and graft in very blunt terms, if necessary.  Once the "attack" is 
made, the "counter-attack" should be focused and ruthless.  

Still thinking...

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2007 8:28:48 AM
Subject: [VO]: Tripod base required for LENR

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



Howdy Vorts,

 

This group overshadows others in the cultivating of an intellectual honesty 
toward candid discussion of the technical merits, pitfalls  and 
inspirational hopes for various  new forms of energy.

 

New energy is an essential for the future and will be achieved 
by preparing a solid foundation, a minimum of three legs, a  tripod 
base if you will. 

 

The first pier must be  intellectual honesty, identify the 
minimum two other piers.

 

Richard

 

Re: [VO]:OT: It's only money

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Just saw this, Richard.  The market system is great, but this is obviously not 
the market system... Ominous.

Begs the question: How many media and government people are fattening 
themselves on all that money, for "services rendered"?  Perhaps that explains 
this "failure". Perhaps this also explains some of the "madness" that now 
abounds in media and government decision-making (and lets not forget academia).

This is why I keep saying that any new inventions or ideas - particularly those 
concerning energy - should be brought directly to the people, as soon as 
practically possible; not governments, academia or media... unless there is 
still a vestige of honesty around in each of these sectors.

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:35:45 AM
Subject: [VO]:OT: It's only money

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



 

Howdy Vorts,

 

Do you suppose the underlying reason for the failure of the US leadsership, 
both government and private sector, to address new energy is lurking within the 
meaning behind this article? A person can use the english language to tell the 
truth 9 different ways without lying as any good lawyer can attest. Anyway you 
cut it, the story reads .. "it's over".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/07/15/ccash115.xml 


 

Richard

Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

You're trying to tell me that Winestone becomes monotonous... or winestoneous...

P.


- Original Message 
From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 11:13:20 AM
Subject: Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen

Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen



Monotone eventually becomes monotonous.

Harry



On 1/9/2007 8:54 AM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:



Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word 
"green."



P.





- Original Message 

From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM

Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen



 

Howdy Vorts,

 

As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes at 
dime a dozen rates.  Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for drinks.

http://www.finavera.com/ 



 http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 



It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave action. 
it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in ocean 
environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall 
Street.   Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The more I 
hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and not the 
landscape. 



Richard

Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word 
"green."

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM
Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



Howdy Vorts,

 

As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes 
at dime a dozen rates.  Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for 
drinks.

http://www.finavera.com/

 http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 


It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave 
action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in 
ocean 
environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall 
Street.   Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The 
more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and 
not 
the landscape.

Richard

Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Richard,

"...feed on itself..."

Does that answer your question?

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:42:52 AM
Subject: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



Howdy Vorts,

 

The increase in research and experiments surrounding methods for 
 producing hydrogen is beginning to feed on itself.

 

What form and at what speed do you forecast the application of 
hydrogen for energy?

 

Richard

 

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

 Richard - did you write this inside or outside the Dime Box Saloon?

 (It would sound so French if you called it the Dime Box Salon, by the way.)

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:08:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real



 
 



Nick Psalmer wrote..

 

>I have to point out that these groups you 
mention must be American and are therefore unlikely to be part of the 
internationally >recognised and credible environmental groups such 
as Friends of the Earth International (at least 50 countries) and 
Greenpeace >International.

 

We have the Sierra Club.. , Green peace etc, 
internationally recognized groups. I am not sure how credible any of them are. 
They have loud voices and money from sources like Soros that may raise an 
eyebrow.   Key global warming to pollution and burning fossil fuel.. 
ok , got that, what's the solution ? Are you giving the energy 
producers 24 hours to get outa the world? Where do you plan to fill up with 
gasoline tomorrow?

 

 

> I believe that some of the type of 
smaller groups (and so called think-tanks) that you talk about have 
been in receipt of funds >from, amongst others, the oil and Coal lobbies to 
appear (in public) to be Green but actually to be on the side of their sponsors 
- >that's good ol' American pork barrels for you! I think it 
was Jed who recently posted a link to an expose of the hundreds 
of such >outfits that Big Oil have been funding. 

 

No argument from me.. we got a problem..what is the 
problem?.. credibility.. some say the earth is warming.. some say it is a 
natural event.. some say its caused by pollution.. others say its volcanos. 
Which somebody is correct? Nobody seems to know.

Does anyone have a ready solution.. nope!  Is 
anyone working on it.. nope! Why not?  Waiting on Nick Palmer to tell 
us.

 

 

>I'm sure that, in the Dime box saloon bar, 
there are people who come out with outrageous and controversial political 
comment, >whether Republican or Democrat

 

Never argue with a drunk.. it's a waste of time and 
you finally learn the drunk loves it. 

 

Richard

Re: [Vo]:Beware of bogus history of "lone mavericks"

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Jed,

I got a little tired of the constant bitching on the site... Many, many words.  
I have more to do with my time and energy.

I didn't send you the URL of the National Post (nationalpost.com) because you 
have to pay unless you're a subscriber... and I happen to be one.  Suffice it 
to say that the NP has been publishing many "denier" articles, the one I 
indicated being one of many.  Having said that, I kind of "mixed" what another 
article said, with the one by "the physicist" in question.  I believe some of 
the ideas to which I referred (like the sun's major influence), came from an 
article the day (or some days) before, by a chap called McKittrick, who is 
responsible for debunking the mathematics behind the famous "hockey stick" 
graph showing humans as nasty earthwarmers.  McKittrick is one of those 
apparently erudite, intelligent, scientists who can explain things without 
referring to the rest of the world, including Al Gore and our own David Suzuki.

Anyhoo, as for the attackers of Cold Fusion, you may or may not know that I am 
100% behind cold fusion because what I've read - various papers, etc. - 
indicates that very definitely we're on to something.  Add to that the fact 
that the sleaze factor behind what happened to Pons and Fleischmann, was simply 
nakedly incredible; I can smell a sleazeball a mile away, and these SBs made no 
scientific sense.  Nature magazine totally offended everything I learned both 
before, during and after my engineering studies.  

But understanding the CF "glass half full" approach (ie - many, but not all, of 
the original experiments worked) doesn't mean that I think people ought to buy 
into every "big oil/big coal" conspiracy theory, and should therefore wear 
tinfoil hats.

Oh, and I understand all too well the difficulty in creating a near-perfect 
experimental design, such as the calorimetry involved.  But it has to be done.  
Far easier to let someone else do your thinking for you or let "the majority" 
speak for you, because the majority always knows...  Doesn't it?

P.



- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:14:50 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Beware of bogus history of "lone mavericks"

PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:

>Good points.  When you consider it, measuring accurate "global 
>temperature" is a far more difficult situation than most people know.

No doubt this is true, but "most people" are not the ones who are 
trying to measure it. Measuring the temperature in a calorimeter is a 
lot harder than most people realize too, but I am 100% sure that the 
leading cold fusion researchers such as Fleischmann, Miles, Oriani 
and Storms are doing it correctly, despite the difficulties. They 
cannot all be wrong, or the experimental method itself would fail, as 
I said. The results would be all over the place. (Random, that is, 
and uncorrelated with helium and so on.)

In an off-line message to Winestone, in response to his suggestion 
that I read the Canadian self-appointed expert, I asked him:

What is the URL?

. . . and I pointed out:

In any case, I am not qualified to judge the methods used by experts 
to measure air temperature, so I probably cannot tell who is right. 
But my point is this: If cold fusion teaches us anything, it is that 
we should not gainsay experts, or take the word of one lone outsider 
against the opinions of experienced experts who have worked for years 
on experiments in the field.

Many people think that the lesson of cold fusion is that lone 
outsiders or mavericks are sometimes right and experts wrong, but it 
is just the opposite. Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris, Oriani and hundreds 
of other cold fusion researchers are the preeminent experts in 
electrochemistry and calorimetry. They are not mavericks at all.

This is true of nearly all the "lone maverick" stories you read about 
in science and technology, such as H. pylori causing ulcers, or 
Townes and the maser. The Wright Brothers are the best example. 
Despite all the pseudo-history and silly nonsense that has been 
written about them, they were emphatically NOT mavericks or outsiders 
to aviation. They knew more about the science anyone else, and they 
had golden experimental data from their wind tunnel. See Wilbur's 
1901 paper if you have any doubts about that:

http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html

They *were* aviation science; they knew everything worth knowing, and 
they had read the entire valid literature, which was compiled by 
Chanute. (I think it was about 100 papers, some of them were pretty good.)

The prominent people who have publicly attacked cold fusion are all, 
without exception, outsiders, loners, flakes & idiots such are Robert 
Park and Gary Taubes. I know the opposition leaders well, and the

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Good points.  When you consider it, measuring accurate "global temperature" is 
a far more difficult situation than most people know.  Heavens, even measuring 
the mean temperature of a room over a period of 24 hours is no mean feat; where 
do the sensors go?  Near the window? Opposite the window?  Is the wind blowing 
toward or away from the window?  Is it winter or summer?... etc.  And how 
accurate will the results be?

As the gentleman in question said, it's a bit like finding the average 
telephone number.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:43:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real



One probably calculates mean global temperature based on other measurements.

I expect that climate science is advanced enough to know what measurements

are necessary and how to calculate the global temperature from those 
measurements.



If they are wrong, then there is either something fundamentally wrong

with the mathematical model used to make the calculation, or they have not made

all the necessary measurements.



Harry  



On 23/6/2007 9:11 PM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:



When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion of 
man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble... except for those of us who 
make a lot of money from the field.



There was an interesting article today in The National Post (Canada), written 
by a physicist, in which, among other things, he asked the question, "How does 
one measure global temperature?"



P.

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Hi Richard, 

How inconvenient that people like you and I won't just lie down and allow 
ourselves to be thoroughly programmed.

CO2 credits?  Reminds me of a little piece of "philosophy" that one of my 
fellow Glaswegian "lay philosophers" said:  "Man has an infinite capacity for 
stupidity."

(I should explain that I differentiate between the word "stupidity" and the 
words "lack of intelligence."  The former is a condition brought on by 
ourselves; one can be intelligent and stupid at the same time (think of the 
word "stupor").  The latter is a congenital situation, which is simply beyond 
our control.)

P.


- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:29:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real



 
DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}



 

Phiip wrote..

 

When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion 
of man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble... except for those of us who 
make a lot of money from the field.


 

Howdy Philip,

 

One look at the business of " trading"CO2 credits 
across the globe is enough for me. The Kyoto accord created a whole new 
industry 
including a new category of lawyers that specializes in "offsetting" pollution 
credits.  Look at Citgo petroleum.. now owned by nation of Venezuela..their 
refinery at Corpus Christi never got a slap on the wrist for pollution... 
until.. Chavez started nationizing their petro industry.

 

Richard

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Let me just repeat what I said to Nick Palmer.  Don't make the unjustified 
assumption that I "believe" anyone, including myself.  And don't put words in 
my mouth, that don't belong there.  Assumptions and judgments such as I  
indicate, are more a reflection of your mind than mine.

P.


- Original Message 
From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:56:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

So let me see if I've gotcha.
Greenies, alternate energy and hippies are evil.

And oil companies are good and only speak the truth without any hint of 
anything self serving.

I bet you'd have believed the tobacco lobby too.



On 6/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion of 
man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble... except for those of us who 
make a lot of money from the field.


There was an interesting article today in The National Post (Canada), written 
by a physicist, in which, among other things, he asked the question, "How does 
one measure global temperature?"


P.


- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:52:51 PM

Subject: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real



The ultra-conservative National Review now admits that global warming is
real. We have truly turned a corner! See:



http://nrd.nationalreview.com/


"COVER STORY


It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that
human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what
remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact.
Conservatives should accept this reality ­ and move on to the question of
what we should do about it. This would put us in a much better position
to prevent a massive, counterproductive intervention in the U.S.
economy.


By Jim Manzi"


Now if we can just persuade the world that cold fusion is real, we
might actually fix the problem.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

When the rational minds at Vortex start to buy into the mythology/religion of 
man-made global warming, we're in deep trouble... except for those of us who 
make a lot of money from the field.

There was an interesting article today in The National Post (Canada), written 
by a physicist, in which, among other things, he asked the question, "How does 
one measure global temperature?"

P.


- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:52:51 PM
Subject: [Vo]:National Review admits global warming is real



The ultra-conservative National Review now admits that global warming is
real. We have truly turned a corner! See:



http://nrd.nationalreview.com/


"COVER STORY


It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that
human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what
remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact.
Conservatives should accept this reality ­ and move on to the question of
what we should do about it. This would put us in a much better position
to prevent a massive, counterproductive intervention in the U.S.
economy.


By Jim Manzi"


Now if we can just persuade the world that cold fusion is real, we
might actually fix the problem.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I keep on saying it:  Bring CF to the people - both investors and users - 
emphatically not the government.  Once a decent application is created, 
advertised and sold, the people will know what to do with it.  Edison and Ford 
understood that.

Keep good ideas away from the government teat.

P.

- Original Message 
From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:24:52 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!

Here is part of a message I just sent to some friends.

. . . This may sound strange coming from me, but I think it is 
unreasonable for us to expect a congressman or government official to 
support cold fusion research. In fact, I think it would be 
irresponsible for a government official to lend support to it. As 
long as nearly all mainstream scientists vociferously oppose cold 
fusion, and as long as they consider it no better than creationism, I 
do not think Congress should overrule them. After all, if cold fusion 
really did resemble creationism or faith healing, we would not want a 
Congressman to step in and promote it over the objections of experts.

In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community, not 
in the national political leadership.

People such as Huizenga, Park and the editor of the Scientific 
American have acted unethically and unprofessionally. They should be 
held responsible. The people at the DoE who reneged on their promise 
should be held responsible. (See 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf) They -- not 
elected officials -- are to blame.

Conversely, I think the public should bring pressure on the Congress 
and on places like the APS to fund cold fusion. The public should 
tell Robert Park to shut up. This is a subtle distinction: Congress 
is not to blame, but if the people tell them to fix the problem, they 
should turn around and order the DoE to fund cold fusion. The fire 
department is not to blame when a fire breaks out, but after you call 
911 and tell them about it, they should come and put it out.

Think about a systematic failure in some other institution. For 
example, it is likely that fast food restaurants are contributing to 
obesity. That is a problem with the food industry, not with the 
Congress, although it is caused in part by agricultural subsidies. 
Perhaps Congress should do something about this, but only if the 
public demands action. Suppose the public is satisfied with the 
quality of fast food. Or suppose it feels that fast food restaurants 
have the right to serve anything they want despite the effects on 
public health. Or that obesity is a personal problem rather than a 
public-health issue. These arguments have merit, and if that is the 
public perception, we should honor it and do nothing about fast-food 
obesity. Political leaders and nutrition researchers should present 
their best case, but in the end, the voters decide the agenda.

If U.S. voters agree that cold fusion should not be publicly funded, 
I reluctantly go along with their decision. I think they have been 
deceived by malicious opponents, but people have a right to be deceived.

You might argue that 0.1% of scientists and the voting public support 
cold fusion research, so it would be fair to allocate 0.1% of the 
energy research budget for this purpose. But, by the same standard, I 
suppose 1% of the public believes in perpetual motion machines such 
as the one Joe Newman claims he has. I would not want to see the 
government spend research money on that sort of thing. Some polls 
indicate that half of the public believes in creationism instead of 
evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on 
creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for creationism.)

Public funding for cold fusion is a complicated issue, but as I said 
in the introduction to the book, in the end it is up to the public. 
Private funding by individuals, universities or corporations is a 
simple issue. They should fund this research as much as they want to!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Read posts before replying, PLEASE

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Yes - I've had a few run-ins with people who (a) have never been inside a 
factory let alone gotten their hands dirty in one, and (b) have no idea what 
it's like to be an "hourly paid" working dude, most times at the mercy of 
"trends".  Then there's the joy of shift-work...

My own take on energy - I'm in the Cold Fusion arena, at least as a support 
person - is to bring Cold Fusion to the people; the real people, that is, who 
often have an intuitive wisdom far greater than the overly educated.  Bring 
Cold Fusion to the people in the form of solid, practical applications, and 
they'll buy into it.  Do NOT bring cold fusion to the government or academia, 
for some kind of approval (or funding), because both will (and have) talk it to 
death.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:47:40 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Read posts before replying, PLEASE

To all, and some in particular, and some not in particular

Please READ people's posts before posting replies. That means the whole 
damned thing, whether or not you agree with it. If you do not take the time 
to read the entire thing, either because you are too lazy to do so, or 
because the content disgusts you, then you do not have the necessary courage 
or fortitude to make a decent reply. Period. Exclamation point. At sign. 
Divide by. (you get the point I suppose)

Case in point: Jeff Fink was attacked for being supposedly on the side of 
the oil companies. He specifically stated in more than one post that he is 
all for getting OFF of the addiction to oil. Stop attacking people when you 
do not read the entire post.

Again, WHY is it that the side which questions Global Warming as caused by 
technology the polite and thoughful side, yet the majority (not all, some 
are OK) of the pro-industrial caused Global Warming side is really beginning 
to paint themselves as hateful scumbags who do not give a damn what happens 
to the working class people, as long as "Owl" Gore is A-OK, and his carbon 
credits too. Inevitably, it seems, any attempt to discuss what is going on 
scientifically becomes a gaggle of ultra-liberals swooping down to brand 
everything as partisan or political. Next, the neo-cons emerge from their 
lairs and counterattack with remarks that make the first group of idiots 
look right. No science then gets discussed. The working class are still left 
driving the evil automoblile, and no one says, hey, lets make some real 
world, nuts and bolts engineering to actually DO something about this, and 
help the "little guy" out in the process.

Also, why are we bringing religion and religious prophecy into this? This is 
supposed to be about science, not theology.

A couple personal points:

To Paul Lowrance: the above is not directed at you. Though I disagree with 
you on the issue of Global Warming, your posts have been quite polite and 
civililzed, and I thank you for that. And, regardless of whether or not we 
agree or disagree on GW, I am right here with you in wanting to see the end 
of the oil-burning age. Maybe a thread should be begun to discuss real world 
solar/etc., how we can make it cheap, ideas, experiments on such, etc.?

To Dr. Mitchell Swartz: Your post was brief, but very good, in my opinion. I 
for one am glad you are still on the list.

To all of us: Now lets go do some experiments, and find some answers. We 
here on Vortex are a myriad collection of peoples from across the globe, 
with many different backgrounds and with our own unique skills. Let us work 
together, and try to really find the answers. Or to put it more humorously, 
with due apologies to the great folks who made "Animal House":

OTTER: In this case, I think we have to go all out. I think this situation 
absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's 
part!
BLUTARSKY: We're just the guys to do it!
BOONE: Lets do it.
BLUTARSKY: LETS DO IT!!! GO GO GO GO


--Kyle, hopefully not on "double secret probation"

Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Actually, for the purposes of scientific argument, "bollocks" is much preferred.

P.


- Original Message 
From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:27:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

Balls!

On 4/24/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always 
starts with "balls".  Something Newtonian I guess.


CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour.  CO2 also causes growth 
in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens.

Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by 
increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.  How he does this, I haven't a clue, but 
there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and 
I) does this.


Personally I don't think you can discuss "depth" and exposing real feelings 
(whatever that means) while you're on a "balls" rant.  You'd never hear the 
Dalai Lama saying "balls".  Is that because
 he's hiding his real feelings?

Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the 
others in this world, including Bush.

P.



- Original Message 
From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on 
science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid 
ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to)

One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the 
second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 
level or the temperature.
Technology can however.



Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that 
CO2 has been rising?
Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable.

I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, 
perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and 
people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, 
politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary.

It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food.
It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not 
really present.
So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as 
things are without preconceptions.

It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being 
shallow not deep.
Truth isn't our friend, nor is light.

Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies.



It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing.


On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE
 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted 
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called "hockey stick" graph that showed 
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial 
Revolution.  These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult 
to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being 
spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing.


The "insufferable arrogance" spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans 
can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been 
largely ignored in the "discussion" on global warming.  Like I said before, 
lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun
 dance.  Perhaps even try some solid science.

P.


- Original Message 

From: Jeff Fink <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 

vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM
Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW




 


 

 

 

 

 

 







Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of "global
warming".  He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the
warmest ever and you buy it as gospel.
 

  
 

There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility
of some on this forum scares me.
 

  
 

It has been much warmer not so long ago.
 

  
 

Here is another example if your attention span will allow:
 

  
 

We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at
elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet.  They like it cool and moist, but don't
like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds.
 

  
 

There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the
 Colorado rockies at Florissant 
at an elevation over 8000 feet.  They are exhibited in place in excavated
pits.  I saw them. But, they looked a little strange.  They did not
look entirely like rock.  I asked ab

Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

You can always tell a good intelligent scientific discussion, because it always 
starts with "balls".  Something Newtonian I guess.

CO2 affects the environment and so does water vapour.  CO2 also causes growth 
in plants, so we should be getting lots of nice green stuff in our gardens.

Then there's the question of Bush and his quest for world domination by 
increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.  How he does this, I haven't a clue, but 
there are many people around who spend their time figuring out exactly how (and 
I) does this.

Personally I don't think you can discuss "depth" and exposing real feelings 
(whatever that means) while you're on a "balls" rant.  You'd never hear the 
Dalai Lama saying "balls".  Is that because he's hiding his real feelings?

Try getting to your own core, then worry about getting to the cores of all the 
others in this world, including Bush.

P.


- Original Message 
From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

Balls.
The argument that us 'puny humans' can't effect the environment isn't based on 
science, it's just a philosophy if you could call it that. (It's a stupid 
ignorant assumption you are happy to risk the world to)

One thing you have to note is that there are 6 Billion of us puny humans, the 
second thing is that I totally agree with you, human's can't effect the CO2 
level or the temperature.
Technology can however.


Ok, so they disputed it, should I take that to mean they refuted the data that 
CO2 has been rising?
Because the evidence that CO2 effects global temperature is quite undeniable.

I agree there is emotional nonsense but I think it is coming from deniers, 
perhaps because believing that Global Warming is happening is disquieting and 
people need to feel everything is ok, that's why people trust the system, 
politicians and doctors even if there is lots of evidence to the contrary.

It's why people turn a blind eye to the poisons in their food.
It's the same motivation that makes people not want to be responsible, not 
really present.
So much of human existence is about hiding real feelings, real thought as 
things are without preconceptions.

It is hard to really get to the core of people, people are used to being 
shallow not deep.
Truth isn't our friend, nor is light.

Or perhaps because they voted for Bush and own stock in oil companies.


It isn't Gore making a killing, Bush has the monopoly on killing.


On 4/23/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted 
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called "hockey stick" graph that showed 
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial 
Revolution.  These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult 
to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being 
spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing.


The "insufferable arrogance" spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans 
can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been 
largely ignored in the "discussion" on global warming.  Like I said before, 
lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun
 dance.  Perhaps even try some solid science.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Jeff Fink <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM
Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW




 


 

 

 

 

 

 







Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of "global
warming".  He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the
warmest ever and you buy it as gospel.
 

  
 

There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility
of some on this forum scares me.
 

  
 

It has been much warmer not so long ago.
 

  
 

Here is another example if your attention span will allow:
 

  
 

We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at
elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet.  They like it cool and moist, but don't
like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds.
 

  
 

There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the
 Colorado rockies at Florissant 
at an elevation over 8000 feet.  They are exhibited in place in excavated
pits.  I saw them. But, they looked a little strange.  They did not
look entirely like rock.  I asked about it at the visitor's center,
and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. 
 

John. The rest is WOOD!  
 

John. How old aren't they?
 

  
 

Back in the 50's, before this site was protected, Mrs.
Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. 
I saw it on display outside at Disneyland 
around 1995.  It was lo

Re: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Then there's the small matter of two Canadian scientists who utterly refuted 
the thinking/mathematics behind the so-called "hockey stick" graph that showed 
how much we puny humans have influenced climate since the Industrial 
Revolution.  These chaps have been all but totally ignored, but it's difficult 
to find a more elegant way of showing just how much emotional nonsense is being 
spouted by the likes of Gore so that he (and many others) can make a killing.

The "insufferable arrogance" spoken of by others here, is that we puny humans 
can influence natural solar cycles, which like the above scientists, have been 
largely ignored in the "discussion" on global warming.  Like I said before, 
lets get out the fire hoses; perhaps do a sun dance.  Perhaps even try some 
solid science.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Jeff Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:44:58 AM
Subject: [Vo]:to John Berry regarding GW




 


 

 

 

 

 

 









Al Gore is poised to make millions if not billions off of “global
warming”.  He puts some chart in his movie saying it is now the
warmest ever and you buy it as gospel.
 

  
 

There are some flakey snake oil salesmen out there, and the gullibility
of some on this forum scares me.
 

  
 

It has been much warmer not so long ago.
 

  
 

Here is another example if your attention span will allow:
 

  
 

We have huge sequoia trees growing in central CA at
elevations of 3000 to 5000 feet.  They like it cool and moist, but don’t
like extreme sub freezing temps or strong winds.
 

  
 

There are fossilized stumps of sequoias in the
 Colorado rockies at Florissant 
at an elevation over 8000 feet.  They are exhibited in place in excavated
pits.  I saw them. But, they looked a little strange.  They did not
look entirely like rock.  I asked about it at the visitor’s center,
and was told that they are only 50% fossilized. 
 

John. The rest is WOOD!  
 

John. How old aren’t they?
 

  
 

Back in the 50’s, before this site was protected, Mrs.
Disney bought one of these stumps for a birthday present for her husband. 
I saw it on display outside at Disneyland 
around 1995.  It was located right next to the lake near
 Adventure Land . 
Those of you who get to Disneyland may still
be able to see it if it hasn’t rotted away by now.
 

  
 

There are many things about this planet’s history that
don’t line up with present day thinking. Let us not be duped into making
big expensive mistakes by selectively ignoring certain historical data.
 

  
 

Again I wonder.  What happened to the ice age we were
threatened with in the late 70’s.  
 

  
 

It’s ironic that many global warming events this past
season were cancelled due to extreme winter conditions.
 

  
 

Jeff
 

  
 

P.S.
 

  
 

John. This is only my third post in over a year.  I
read your stuff, and you post almost everyday.  You could give me the
courtesy of reading all of what I said before you publicly call me an idiot,
and perhaps point out specific errors in my writings so that I may be 
enlightened.
 

  
 







No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007 8:18 PM

 

Re: [VO]:Re: Global warming

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Richard, I bet you were going to tell us that the green stuff in their mouths 
isn't tropical vegetation...

P.

- Original Message 
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:14:16 AM
Subject: [VO]:Re: Global warming

Blank


BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
 Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
 "Times New Roman";}



John Berry wrote..

 

It is already far warmer that it has been for an extremely long time, not 
500 years.
I can't be bothered reading the rest of your ignorant post but if 
you don't realize that the weather is warming up your a fool/idiot. 


Howdy John,

You may propose a solution to your fear of global warming. Perhaps you can 
enlist China, India and Africa to co-operate in a pollution free world.

Been my experience people are notional and not subject to change until and 
unless it is their particular ox being gored.( pun intended). The earth has a 
marvelous adaptive functionality.. it simple allows a species to die off if 
that 
species can''t adapt and survive. 

Now speaking of mammoths being frozen in Siberia.. shucks , we have 
politicians in office in Texas... well.. err.. nevermind.. you wouldn't believe 
it.

Richard

Re: [Vo]:Global Warning

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Not only that, but Jeff didn't deny that global warming wasn't happening 
(although that in itself is questionable - if we're "allowed" to question the 
sacred GW Scriptures); he was simply saying that the evidence (evidence, mind 
you) is that global warming has happened before and will happen again.  Aside 
from anything else, I find the arrogance, on many levels, of the 
Global-warming-as-a-religion crowd, utterly insufferable.  Definitely worth 
fighting, if only for that reason.

P.


- Original Message 
From: Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:04:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Global Warning

- Original Message - 
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Global Warning


> It is already far warmer that it has been for an extremely long time, not 
> 500 years.
> I can't be bothered reading the rest of your ignorant post but if you 
> don't realize that the weather is warming up your a fool/idiot.

Interesting to see that the side which questions global warming is the side 
which posts the more thought-out, calm posts, and yet still suggests that we 
should so something about pollution and oil dependancy.

But on the other side of the coin, all the pro-global warming side can do is 
namecall, demand that people get fired, talk about criminalizing use of 
incandescent light bulbs, talk about taking more of what little money we 
have away, and call "global warming denial" the equivalent of "holocaust 
denial", while using terms such as "idiot", "fool", etc.

Yes, it is easy to see which side is doing the thinking, and which side is 
the Reich of the Carbon Black Sun.

> That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this.

Numbers to support this please.

--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]:Global Warning

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

The warming 500 - 1000 years ago is a blip compared to what, exactly?

P.


- Original Message 
From: John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Global Warning



On 4/23/07, Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That warming 500-1000 years ago is a blip compared to this.

Numbers to support this please.

--Kyle
Watch "An Inconvenient Truth", there is a chart that addresses this. 

Re: [Vo]:Global Warning

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

Nicely said Jeff.

P.

- Original Message 
From: Jeff Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:42:29 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Global Warning




 


 

 

 

 









  
 

The headline in my newspaper of Saturday Feb. 3, 2007 said,
“GLOBAL WARNING- If nothing is done to combat greenhouse gases, extreme
weather could kill 1 million people by 2100…
 

  
 

I am greatly concerned about the “global warming hysteria”
that is being foisted upon the public.  I recall a news caster six weeks before
saying that Europe had just experienced the
warmest autumn in 500 years.  Do you realize what that means?  It means that
500 years ago it was warmer, and that human activity had nothing to do with
it!  It is well known to some historians that the period from 900 to 1100 AD
was also warmer than today by about three degrees, and human activity had
nothing to do with that either!  Mars is even heating up.  I can’t wait
to be told what part of my lifestyle is causing the Martian heat wave!
 

  
 

There are mammoths frozen in the Siberian tundra with flesh still intact,
and tropical vegetation in their mouths.  When discovered in the 1800’s,
the meat was still edible! The stuff in my freezer isn’t fit to eat after
five years. So, how old can these animals be?   Clearly, Siberia 
was a tropical climate in the recent past.  That warm period cannot possibly be
the fault of the human race.
 

  
 

Scientists know these things, but they are being threatened to shut up
about it.  There are many scientists who disagree with the hypothesis that we
are causing global warming, but they are becoming less vocal as they consider
the loss of funding and loss of career if they continue to say what they really
believe.  Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel recently said that any weather
person who did not believe in “global warming” should be fired! 
The coercion continues!
 

  
 

In the late 70’s the media was scaring us with predictions from
reputable researchers about the coming ice age.  These scientists were not
idiots.  Why has the story turned 180 degrees in the past 20 yrs?  
 

  
 

Is there some kind of agenda here?  There sure is!  With our public
school children forced to watch Al Gore’s movie over and over again, and
his recent rant before Congress, he has herded the US leadership and general
population into a vulnerable position. He can now, with his established
business enterprises, corral billions of dollars from gullible people by
selling them bogus carbon credits!
 

  
 

We are being told that we must reduce our production of greenhouse
gases, including CO2.  Plants and trees love CO2.  They must have it to
survive.  They would grow much faster if CO2 levels were two or three times
higher.  Nursery people know this and they inject CO2 into their green houses
to dramatically increase growth rates.  
 

  
 

CO2 is the natural byproduct of combustion.  It is a direct measure of
a civilization’s prosperity; the more controlled per capita production of
CO2, the higher the standard of living.  For us to significantly reduce CO2
emissions by conservation, we must dramatically reduce our quality of life. 
The resulting downward spiral of the world economy could ultimately cause more
death and destruction than “global warming”.
 

  
 

Through the ages the sun heats up, the sun cools down, and there is
nothing we can do about it.  If the sun burps, we burn; if the sun sneezes, we
freeze.  We are presently in a natural warming trend.  It is arrogance to think
we are causing it.  If we are too puny to cause it, then we are definitely too
puny to fix it.  We shouldn’t live in fear.  As long as God has His hand
on the sun’s thermostat, we will be alright.  But, we live in an age
where much of the world’s leadership and this forum believe that we
ourselves are all the god we have, and all the god we need.
 

  
 

We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization.  When humans
endeavor to solve god sized problems by our own inadequate efforts, we can only
expect to create for ourselves a hell on earth.  As the global warming issue
finds its way into the legislative process we are on the verge of making some
really bad laws that will hurt all of us.
 

  
 

Don’t misunderstand me.  I’m all for conservation,
alternate energy, and getting off of oil dependency.  I have spent thousands of
my own dollars on PAGD and cavitation experiments, trying to discover something
that will help.  But, let’s not be stupid by making crippling decisions
that will cause the human race to lose its hold on civilization.  We will only
have the resources to solve our problems while working from a position of
prosperity, not poverty.
 

  
 

Jeffrey L Fink, B.S. Aerospace
  Engineering VA Tech
 

  
 







No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 
AM

 

Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based.

[PHILIP WINESTONE]

I think we should aim all the fire-hoses on earth at the sun, then say ready! 
set! go!  (The element of surprise is so important.).

P.

- Original Message 
From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:08:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based.

Indeed Paul, whether you and Dr Brenda and the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ are 
right is irrelevant. The real question is, can humanity remediate global 
warming, and how, we should be practical about this.

Thomas suggested some drives as propulsion means for space parasols, but it 
seems to me that since the parasols will be submitted to photon pressure 
anyway, it would be great if they could be entirely sustented this way (solar 
sails). Indeed, whatever the mass and reflective area of the parasol, there 
must exist a spot on the Sun-Earth line where it will be in equilibrium between 
solar attraction, centrifugal force and photon pressure, comments/criticisms 
welcome on this.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Lowrance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [VO]:Global warning caused by humanity-- now factually based.


> Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> [snip
>> Should we try to cut emissions of "bad" gases? Sure, why not, but not at 
>> the detriment of the basis of our society, that is, the working class. 
>> Maybe anyone in an environmentalist organization should be given a 
>> severe tax increase to support a changeover to something else, or to be 
>> used to buy those dandy carbon credits. Call is the "practice what you 
>> preach" tax. No more or less stupid than the "how many congressmen does 
>> it take to change a lightbulb" thing, or however that little gem of 
>> bovine waste product was worded.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree more people should focus on this issue. When so many climate 
> scientists 
> now agree with recent* data that smog, etc. etc. etc are indeed causing 
> appreciable damage then who should care that the Sun is having a bad cycle?  
> I 
> mean, we can't change the Sun, but the effects caused by modern society are 
> real 
> and undeniable. We should try to improve.
> 
> It seems the major debate in this thread is what's the major cause of global 
> warming-- humanity or the Sun.  Really, who cares if humanity is 51% of the 
> cause and the Sun is 49%, LOL.  So what? We shouldn't care.  Fact still 
> remains 
> that humanity is a big cause, period. Therefore I would agree with Kyle's 
> post. 
> Lets focus on how we can improve things. Lets try to encourage more minds 
> focusing on this issue.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Lowrance
>

Re: [VO]:Re: Walter Russell

[Philip Winestone]

Richard,

That "somebody" will be you, no doubt.

I'm a totally unknown artist, and I say that a primary is whatever 
you say is a primary - seen or unseen.


I also happen to be a huge fan of black and of white - nothing and 
everything - and sometimes colours just get in the way of a good picture.


P.


At 07:04 PM 4/9/2007, you wrote:

Phiip wrote..

The truth is that it isn't in any space - 3- or otherwise.  There
really is nothing there except what we project/perceive Nth-hand and
draw conjectures from... whoever we are.

As Hui Neng said, "From the first there is Nothing."


Howdy Philip,

Yes!, I know that and you know that. Walter Russell spent more time 
thinking about it than I have and he concluded he was open to suggestions.
One of these days somebody may explain a lot of things I find no 
answers to... Russell delved into many including the periodic tables 
etc.. but he stopped before he got into colors. hmmm.
  My wife is a renowned artist and she states categorically there 
are 3 primary colors.. but I say there are 12.. we just can't see the rest.


Richard

Re: [VO]:Re: Walter Russell

[Philip Winestone]

The truth is that it isn't in any space - 3- or otherwise.  There 
really is nothing there except what we project/perceive Nth-hand and 
draw conjectures from... whoever we are.


As Hui Neng said, "From the first there is Nothing."

P.


At 06:20 PM 4/9/2007, you wrote:

Jones wrote...

It is not clear that Russell's table does not also predict
this particle, nor that quantum "half-spin" is not also a recognition
that this particle e- is never fully in our 3-space.

Even if it is, isn't the "illusion of having fractional charge" a nice
way of telling the mainstream - "hey, you already blew it once, but
we're not going to rub it in just yet, if we get the big prize"?

Is this food-for-thought... or merely time for a 'pepto' to prevent
indigestion?

Howdy Jones,

One must have a huge cup of Texas coffee to sip while digesting a 
"Jones moment" and an extemely elastic mind to stretch around 
thoughts provoked by such "moments".


Or as Burl Ives quipped (in the movie " The Big Country") to Chuck 
Conners... "perhaps there's a side to you I never saw before"


Good wording,,."never fully in our 3-space".  and excellent 
wording.. "illusion of having a fractional charge". Knowing  how 
these thoughts issue forth from that fertile brain of yours is not 
as important as the stimulation. As I sit in my rockin' chair on the 
front porch of the Dime Box Saloon watching a water vortex 
experiment and gaze at the water flowing " upward" as it is 
flowing downward..while emptying the vessel I can better accept  both wordings.


 The more we study on it, the less we understand..One of my 
favorite science books.. the book of Job.. contains dialogue with 
some fellows about the workings of nature and concludes with the 
question by God.{ para-phrased by Richard}  " if you are so smart. 
tell me how I did it".


Richard

Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in P&F, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)

[Philip Winestone]

Ed - I've been following this saga only sketchily, and it only 
reinforces my observation that there's an enormous number of people 
who regard this world as a gigantic court of law; that everything 
(every word) has to be legally justifiable.  What a bore


The world is NOT like that, and I for one don't tolerate being 
cross-examined on every word or statement I make. And neither should you.


If people don't have (or are *above* having) an intuitive grasp of an 
idea or statement, that's just too bad.  Neither you nor I, nor 
anyone else, should have to suffer an inquisition; even a so-called 
scientific inquisition.


P.


At 08:17 PM 3/19/2007, you wrote:



Michel Jullian wrote:

So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on 
and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and 
the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed 
involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a 
solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper 
talks about principally, and that's why it says "electrolysis of 
palladium", right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention 
this process in the paper!
I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, 
since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too "electrolyzed a 
platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O 
electrolyte". Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed 
to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too?

Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-)
Thanks for the good laugh Ed :


You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach 
very sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a 
word is wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in 
which this word is used have no value at all to you. You initially 
asked some good questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I 
supplied the information you requested, the only issue was my use of 
a word.  Am I mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed?


Ed

Michel
- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in P&F, palladium or heavy 
water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)





Michel Jullian wrote:


No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is 
also considered electrolysis.



If by this you mean that electroplating 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical 
decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes 
in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, 
a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the 
cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or 
more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal.


In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves 
dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the 
bath. However in P&F experiments such as yours palladium is the 
_cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot 
be invoked to say that palladium is being "electrolyzed".


Controversy solved?



I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. 
First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not 
decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of 
electrolysis.  As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does 
in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating 
on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve 
and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is 
complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing 
through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation 
being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I 
might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 
18 years and do understand the subject.


Ed


Michel

Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry 
--terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their 
misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions 
to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more 
generally for "calling a cat a cat" (sorry for being such a smug 
aristocratic French smart ass Terry)



- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack





Michel Jullian wrote:



- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack





The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word 
electrolysis is being used correctly.



I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost  ;-)




He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a 
chemical reaction by passage of c

Re: [Vo]: Brown's Gas burns hotter than the sun?

[Philip Winestone]

All I know is that a few years ago I stood beside a "Brown's Gas 
Generator" and watched in awe as a colourless flame MELTED a 
firebrick in just a few seconds.


Not sure about its applicability in an internal combustion engine, 
but it may be applicable in a new form of external combustion engine.


P.


At 02:09 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote:

http://www.dailybeat.net/media/706/The-water-fueled-car.html

yet another example of shoddy reporting.

--
That which yields isn't always weak.

Re: [Vo]: To Paul Lowrance

[Philip Winestone]

Sorry for barging into someone else's letter...

A quick question:  We all seem to be fixated on "excess 
energy".  What if one of the many innovative (or potentially 
innovative) ideas were to result in an engine (a fairly simple 
engine) of some sort that ***didn't*** produce excess energy, but did 
have an overall efficiency of, say, three times that of the most 
efficient internal combustion engine?  Wouldn't that be worth 
pursuing from a practical standpoint?


P.


At 12:36 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:

Paul Lowrance posted;

>Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your 
passive aggressive >ways of life is better than my direct ways of life.


Correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but you seem to believe that it is 
possible to reverse the 2nd Law with an electromagnetic machine. 
Nobody would be happier than me if yo were to demonstrate such a 
dingus. OTOH, many people have claimed to have done so, but AFAIK, 
no one has. You may have noticed my criticisms of several characters 
who have made their appearance on the FE stage. They include; The 
Russian Science Fiction Author, Alexander Frolov, The Vaporware 
Merchant, Peter Linderman, The Inventor Joseph Newman, The Doctor 
Tom Bearden. These people have been selling their "information" for 
years, but AFAIK, they have yet to demonstrate a working machine. 
These people are particularly aggravating to me because they are 
IMHO, selling trash. This critique does not apply to Chukanov, any 
researcher into controlled fission or fusion, and Mills, who seems 
to be producing excess energy, and whose explanations have a basis 
in sensible physical theory.




--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---

Re: [Vo]: Re: MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation)

[Philip Winestone]

Or as Hui Neng said: "From the first, there is nothing."

P.


At 11:37 AM 2/25/2007, you wrote:

Paul wrote:

"A poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American 
researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French 
periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly 
60% thought many worlds interpretation was 'true'."



Despite "true" being a loaded-word, if there ever was one  there 
is really no other way to scientifically explain how the so-called 
"stochastic process" seems to deviate from true randomness - yet 
always to deviate "as if" it were goal-oriented.


Now...how is that sentence sounding for being able to totally 
disguise the "true" limits of "ID" (and were are not talking Freud here)?


Jones

BTW the "stochastic process" for those who follow this kind of thing 
in the biological minutiae of life (and given the weekly timing)... 
and further assuming that you wish to discover the hint of 
spirituality which is present in Richard Dawkins writings, and which 
reconciles that seemingly godless outlook with the blatant 
spirititual overtones of Rupert Sheldrake  well, it (the 
"stochastic process") is as close to putting a name on divinity as 
science allows, without resorting to "faith".


And if that phrasing is not confusing enough, let me add simply that 
it is far from a clinical outlook and in fact is very comforting - 
to those who have gotten a handle of the concept of "timelessness"

Re: [Vo]: Global warming skepticism alive and well (was Re: [Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-...])

[Philip Winestone]

Pathological scepticism is not the same as deliberately lying to cover up 
meaningful results.


P.


At 09:43 AM 2/7/2007 -0500, you wrote:

Michel Jullian wrote:

Now you mention it, anybody knows if anything positive came out of 
their  Toyota/Technova funded CF lab in Nice, France?


Many positive results came from this effort:

1. Johnson-Matthey learned how to make Pd that works nearly every time. 
They characterize the material in detail. Unfortunately, they are the only 
ones who know anything about it and they have not published a single word. 
Toyota and Johnson-Matthey were never able to come to an agreement on 
sharing information or joint development, according to my sources.


2. Technova learned to trigger massive excess heat and heat after death in 
nearly every cell.


3. In the end they made boiling cells that produced as much as 74 watts 
continuously for 40 to 150 days. See: 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


Unfortunately, after the program founder and main supporter Mr. Toyoda 
died, the project was killed by harsh political opposition. That's what 
Martin Fleischmann and others told me. Toyoda was one of the sons of the 
Toyota Company founder and he had enough influence to ward off the skeptics.


The "failure" of the NHE program also soured some of the Japanese 
leadership on cold fusion. I put failure in quotes because the program 
actually did produce excess heat in the last stage, in the experiments 
conducted by Melvin Miles. See:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcalorimetrb.pdf

In the final report the directors of the laboratory lied about Miles 
results and claimed that he produced no excess heat.


Japanese skeptics at high levels are now trying to kill off the 
transmutation research at Mitsubishi, the National Synchrotron Laboratory 
and Tokyo National University. I expect they will succeed, using the same 
arguments used to destroy cold fusion in the U.S. by the DoE reviewers, 
i.e., this is a disgrace to science and these results "are not to be 
believed." See:


http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#StormsRothwellCritique

Pathological skepticism is alive and well in Japan.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MIT Professor Begins Hunger Srike

[Philip Winestone]

Steve,

The word of the day seems to be "dogma" whether it be in science, art, 
religion...  My take on all this is to be silent - to shut my mouth - and 
observe... only opening my mouth when I sense receptivity.  This is where 
intuition comes into play.  From time to time my ego gets the better of me 
and naturally I "suffer" for it.


Best thing is to be internally content with what one knows... and what one 
doesn't know; two sides of the same coin.


Seeking continues...

P.



At 12:51 AM 2/6/2007 -0800, you wrote:

Philip,

I guess when I got to thinking more about my shamefully devious creative 
impulse here...this didn't just come out of nowhere. I can see why this 
is, unfortunately, believable. Based on what Peter Hagelstein as well as 
what Keith Johnson have told me about their treatment at "the Institute," 
this isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination. I just watched 
Keith's movie, Breaking Symmetry. I'd say it's more of a documentary 
rather than entertainment. But some nice rated R scenes, though.



s

Re: [Vo]: Re:[VO]: MIT Professor Begins Hunger Srike

[Philip Winestone]

Rush Limbaugh!!  That's who

P.



At 08:00 PM 2/5/2007 -0600, you wrote:

Steve Krivit wrote..

It's not so much that the mind is shut. It's a process of belief systems
and the influence of mass media.



Howdy Steven,

You have the fundamentals .. but ..CF lacks the charismatic person that 
can sell it. Until that person emerges, it slumbers. An example is Henry 
Ford.  Pure energy, design and build thinking combined with marketeering 
genius. Right place at the right time in history. Everybody thinks they 
can do it given the opportunity.. but.. only a few have what it takes.. 
just a few.. there never has been but a few. If that person emerges on the 
CF scene we will see CF move forward. If not


 It is the person, not the science that is holding things up.

Richard

Re: [Vo]: MIT Professor Begins Hunger Strike

[Philip Winestone]

After all that's happened, the Science Inquisition is still humming 
along.  I feel bad for the guy, especially as few in the media (correct me 
if I'm wrong) will go out to bat for him.  Hopefully I am wrong.


I myself got into, shall we say, an intense conversation today, while at 
work.  I mentioned Cold Fusion, and got the usual nonsense thrown back at me.


It's just not possible to deal with a mind that's sealed tightly shut.

Philip.


At 04:39 PM 2/5/2007 -0800, you wrote:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/05/national/a151838S67.DTL&feed=rss.news

MIT Professor Begins Hunger Strike



By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer

Monday, February 5, 2007

(02-05) 15:18 PST BOSTON, (AP) --

An MIT professor began a hunger strike Monday to protest the university's 
decision to deny him tenure, which he claims was based on his choice to 
study cold fusion.


Peter Hagerty, a cold fusion scientist, said he tried for two years to 
persuade administrators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to 
reverse the department head's rejection of his tenure bid.


"I'm not actually doing this to get tenured," Hagerty said. "I'm doing 
this for the reason that I wasn't tenured ­ which is scientific racism ­ 
and I want this institution to admit that that is the problem and make 
plans to do something about it."


After a last meal ­ two bowls of Chex cereal ­ Hagerty stood outside 
provost L. Rafael Reif's office in protest, accompanied by about 25 
friends and supporters.

Re: [Vo]: Re:[VO]:Re: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol..

[Philip Winestone]

Perfect Richard.  But I still have to see Dime Box to believe it really 
exists... and that it has a tavern...


P.


At 06:38 PM 1/21/2007 -0600, you wrote:

Philip wrote..

Excellent!!! How true!!! The reason is that the intent in all cases is to
indoctrinate along certain predictable lines thus creating a nice docile
herd.  It's not to create clear, creative thinking - usually through
doubting accepted dogma then applying "lateral thinking" and ultimately
applying solid investigation.

Call me a cynic...



Howdy Philip,

Old story from the bibleAnd the people cried, we want a king.  Samuel 
explained.. you have a King !. The people cried, no, we want a king like 
everybody else.


Samuel explained.. If you elect a king, he will make your daughters 
servants, conscript your sons into an army and take your best land.


 What this means is that if you pay somebody to do your worrying for 
you.. it is only a small step to where they start doing your thinking for 
you.. when this happens.. they wind up owning you.


Most issues can be simply resolved by identifying the troublemakers.. 
handcuff one of their hands to the other guy's hand .. give them both a 
sharp machete... take them outside the Dime Box Tavern.. and let them work 
it out between themselves. Sure saves on broken glass and mirrors.


Richard

Re: [Vo]: Re: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol in State of the Union

[Philip Winestone]

Excellent!!! How true!!! The reason is that the intent in all cases is to 
indoctrinate along certain predictable lines thus creating a nice docile 
herd.  It's not to create clear, creative thinking - usually through 
doubting accepted dogma then applying "lateral thinking" and ultimately 
applying solid investigation.


Call me a cynic...

P.


At 10:14 AM 1/21/2007 -0500, you wrote:

On 1/21/07, Philip Winestone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


(And we too have our major sources of inertia... We call it collectively,
"the government.")


"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy
knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy
information and religions destroy spirituality.

Michael Ellner"

Re: [Vo]: Iogen, eh?

[Philip Winestone]

Canadian "smarts" at work, eh Philip?

All these Canadian smarts have no idea that the "eh" started off (or "aff") 
in Glasgow, my city of origin.  It's actually more like "aih".


The problem with the company's approach, from some of my tentative dealings 
with them, is that like a lot of such companies, they like to get into bed 
(so to speak) with big government.  My way of looking at it is that if they 
can't swing the production of ethanol in an independent, profitable manner, 
they should get out of the business (as all such companies 
should).  Government sucks as a business partner.


My own tack on all this (as I indicated earlier) is to nail down the 
logistics (in the manner I mentioned) and get people working, who otherwise 
would not be working (ie: in the pulp and paper sector).


Can we drink (Molsons) to that?

P.


At 07:11 AM 1/21/2007 -0800, you wrote:

I-owe-gen, eh? > as in "I owe it all to genetics"

About --Iogen--  Cellulose Ethanol Enzyme Technology

Canadian "smarts" at work, eh Philip?

Probably w/o the need for an ice-cold catalyst either: i.e. of the 
Molson's variety... yet they should still hire Mike Myers to do a little 
PR work for name-recognition. From the Website:


http://www.iogen.ca/company/about/index.html

Established in the 1970s, Iogen Corporation has become one of Canada's 
leading biotechnology firms.  Iogen is the world leader in technology to 
produce cellulose ethanol, a fully renewable, advanced biofuel that can be 
used in today's cars.  Iogen is also an industrial manufacturer of enzyme 
products with a focus on products for use by the pulp and paper, textile 
and animal feed industries.


Iogen is a privately held company, based in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with 
a rapidly growing work force.  Public and private investment in Iogen has 
totaled approximately $130 million over the past 25 years. Major investors 
include the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Petro-Canada and Goldman Sachs.   The 
company employs a staff of approximately 190 people, with over half 
involved in research and development, and engineering; one fifth in 
manufacturing; and the balance in sales, marketing, and administration.


Cellulose Ethanol is Ready to Go

Cellulose ethanol can significantly:

* lower overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
* reduce reliance on imported oil and increase energy security
* help build rural economies and improve farm income

Cellulose ethanol is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce GHGs 
and gasoline consumption in road transport and can deliver benefits 
similar to improved vehicle efficiency.


Iogen built and operates the world's only demonstration scale facility to 
convert biomass to cellulose ethanol using enzyme technology.  This 
facility is located in Ottawa. Iogen is currently assessing potential 
locations for the world's first commercial prototype cellulose ethanol plant.


In the long-term, Iogen intends to commercialize its cellulose ethanol 
process by licensing its technology broadly through turnkey plant 
construction partnerships. License fees and the supply of enzymes to the 
licensees' plants will generate income.

Re: [Vo]: Steorn question

[Philip Winestone]

I have an intuitive feeling - totally unsubstantiated - that the law of 
energy conservation is to energy, what Newton's laws were to mechanics (or 
physics in general).


I mean you can take a pound of any explosive and explain that the energy 
from that explosive is a direct (measurable) result of the chemical energy 
used (a) to combine the chemical ingredients and (b)  recombinations with 
the oxygen inside and outside of the explosive itself (rather a crude 
explanation).


But when one looks at a nuclear explosion or nuclear energy in general, how 
do we get to the source of the energy that was used to "combine" the 
subatomic particles in the first place, to form whole atoms?  How far back 
in this "process" do we have to go?  We just assume that on a universal 
scale the first law has always operated...


So it could be that energy is inherent in everything (as Einstein 
demonstrated of course).  But I keep asking the question: If there's as 
much energy in a pound of butter as there is in a pound of uranium, how do 
we release the energy from the butter?  Perhaps the current research into 
LENR will give us some insight (and eventually we'll run our heating 
systems on butter!!!)


P.



At 09:50 PM 1/21/2007 +1100, you wrote:

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:00:17 
-0500:

Hi,
[snip]


Because it doesn't.  It's a magnetic motor -- permanent-magnet-based 
engine -- and there's no mechanism for it to "steal heat" from the 
environment, nor any evidence whatsoever that it does so.


It's type-1 perpetual motion:  violation of the first law, which is 
conservation of energy.  If the Steorn motor works, then a Steorn motor 
operating in a closed environment will warm up that environment.




If it works at all, then I'd be more inclined to believe that it is deriving
energy from an unexpected source, rather than creating it.

One off-beat possibility is a time distortion field. I wonder if clocks 
in the

surroundings run at a different speed? :)

Time or inertia distortions are a distinct possibility if zero point 
energy is being tapped and Haisch, Rueda and Puttoff are right that ZPE is 
the energy behind inertia, gravity and thus all potential energy.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics


[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: Re: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol in State of the Union

[Philip Winestone]

Well enlighten us ! Can you name the company and the enzyme, please.



The company in Ottawa is Iogen (that's an "I" not an "L"), but I'm afraid I 
didn't go so far as to find out the name of the enzyme; I've been remiss.


(And we too have our major sources of inertia... We call it collectively, 
"the government.")


Philip.

Re: [Vo]: Re: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol in State of the Union

[Philip Winestone]

Then why are the chattering classes always talking about corn as the input 
vs cellulose?


Oh - and by the way, apparently the Ottawa company - experts in this area 
of biotechnology - was the pioneer in producing and using this enzyme 
effectively.  That's what I'm told... and I believe everything I'm told.


P.


At 07:50 AM 1/20/2007 -0800, you wrote:



Philip Winestone wrote:

Nobody seems to have taken notice of this process, which was pioneered by 
a company in Ottawa.



Well - not exactly ! Our (USA) DOE/NREL has poured lots of its precious 
(underfunded) resources into this exact area :


http://www.ethanol-gec.org/information/briefing/2.pdf

Re: [Vo]: Re: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol in State of the Union

[Philip Winestone]

There is another way of making ethanol: from cellulose.  There's a process 
that uses an enzyme that converts the cellulose to sugar from which it is 
converted to ethanol.  The process is proven; ethanol is being produced 
this way.


Nobody seems to have taken notice of this process, which was pioneered by a 
company in Ottawa.  The main (apparent) drawback was how to get feedstock 
for the process; in other words the logistics of procuring cellulose 
(preferably waste) and getting it to the plant.  The answer is very simple, 
and nobody has listened to what I've said about it.  It doesn't lie within 
the energy industry, it lies instead within the pulp and paper industry, an 
industry that is well acquainted with handling both "clean" and waste 
(stumpage, leaves, etc.) cellulose.


It's a long but simple story, but in the end, the pulp and paper industry - 
with (at least in Canada) all these mills closing down or losing money - 
could be at the forefront.  The whole approach depends on NOT thinking big 
(apparently one energy corporation was/is considering spending about $250 
million on such a plant to produce... 20 million gallons of ethanol per 
year; about a 15 year payback.  Real insanity.  Far better to build many 
small plants (using an improved/evolving process) where the feedstock and 
the handling expertise are.


P.



At 06:03 PM 1/19/2007 -0500, you wrote:

- Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Yomiuri: Bush to promote ethanol in State of the Union


Well, at least there has been some anti-ethanol press lately. I saw 
articles in Sci. Am., Consumer Reports, and the Atlanta Journal calling 
into question the use of ethanol. One of them reported a horrifying 
statistic: filling up a 25 gallon tank with ethanol fuel uses up as much 
potential nutrition from corn as a human being consumes in a year.


I don't know if it is as bad as all that, but word I hear is the massive 
use of corn for ethanol is playing hell with the Mexicans. Apparently, the 
price of corn (a major food stuff there, as I am sure you are all aware) 
has been driven up over there. Fingers are being pointed at the ethanol 
business. There is no bound it seems to human stupidity. We are literally 
talking about burning our food for fuel. Why? This is the most inefficient 
use of solar energy there is.


Sunlight + nutrients + fertilizers derived from petrochemicals + labor + 
uncertain growing conditions > extremely low efficiency conversion of 
ethanol + hungry people and more slash and burn agriculture. Why not save 
a few steps? Sunlight > electricity via steam turbines + synthetic fuels.


BTW, what was the real story behind Solar One (think this is the one I am 
thinking of) anyways? Did it just not perform well, or was it axed?


--Kyle

Re: [Vo]: Musings on grid-independence and personal alternative energy

[Philip Winestone]

The whole roofing situation is an expensive problem to solve.  You can't 
just penetrate a roof of any sort without extensive sealing, etc.  All that 
costs money.  And even if the collectors are anchored parallel to the roof 
- perhaps even attached closely to it, the risk is still there that there 
will be a pressure differential between upper and lower surfaces that will 
make the collectors fly off - perhaps taking some of the roof with them.


As for build-ups of snow and ice; ice being somewhat transparent, will 
allow some amount or solar heating to take place within the collector, much 
the way it does in your car during the day.  Snow too - depending on how 
much, may allow this, and at 45degrees tilt, there may be enough melting to 
allow it to slide off.  All this assumes some degree of thermal insulation, 
which defeats the purpose in summer when you need flow-through of air (but 
not dust).


As with all solar applications, there are trade-offs.  Last thing you (I) 
want to do is climb up on the roof to fix things so they work.  Could be 
that a separate, fairly low (accessible) "billboard" set-up is best - not 
too many billboards fly away, because they're designed not to - but again 
there's a cost factor.


P.


At 01:56 PM 1/1/2007 +0100, you wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Musings on grid-independence and personal alternative 
energy



>
>
> thomas malloy wrote:
>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Steck wrote:
>>>
 I might be mistaken, but I think there is a significant performance
 drop at
 low temperatures with solar cells... someone please correct if wrong.
>
> Groping around on the web I ran into an off-hand claim that they
> actually perform better at low temperatures, here:
>
> http://www.wagonmaker.com/power.html
>
> Haven't dug into it any farther at this point.

They do perform better when they are cooled.

>
>
>>>
>>> What's worse, there's a totally catastrophic performance drop when
>>> they're covered with 2" of snow, or an inch or two of ice.
>>
>> Sounds like a job for electrical heater cables to me.
>
> That, plus a 45 degree tilt, might be all that's needed.

Ideally they should be pointed towards the yearly average of the sun's 
position in your sky, so in the northern hemisphere they should point 
south and be tilted wrt the horizontal with an angle equal to the latitude 
(0° at the equator, 90° at the north pole)


>
> Then we'd just need to be sure they were well enough anchored to the
> roof so that the tilted solar panels wouldn't turn into a "solar sail"
> and fly away in the first storm that comes along...

In this respect, if your roof already has a pretty steep pitch, you might 
be better off laying them flat on the roof as Robin suggested.


Michel

P.S. Wrt your earlier remark about clouds, I believe PV works rather well 
in diffuse light too.


>
>>
>>
>> --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! --
>> http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Musings on grid-independence and personal alternativeenergy

[Philip Winestone]

Kyle, I can relate totally to what you're saying  having dealt with 
stupidity, feigned or otherwise, when I was trying to eke out a living in 
the solar energy design business (many years ago).  So much for being a 
"highly paid consultant" - a phrase usually thrown at me by overpaid, 
overpensioned, overcoddled government types.


At the moment I'm just waiting for the moment when some company such as 
Steorn or MPI or a company in the cold fusion business tries to 
commercialize its technology and sell it to real people.  Your 
fuel-efficient Chevy will be nothing compared to the trumped-up legislation 
that will suddenly appear at all government levels.


Call me a cynic, but in case nobody here has read about it, the EPA is now 
attempting to shut down the use of diesel in the US due to some 
technicality based on % nitrous oxides.  They did that to the UK mini 
around 1973 when there was a gas crisis, on the basis of % pollutants 
exiting the exhaust.  As far as I know there was no consideration given to 
miles travelled per gallon or gas.  Only % pollutants in the 
exhaust.  Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.


P.


At 08:00 PM 12/30/2006 -0500, you wrote:



I didn't think it was that bad of an idea, or at least not bad enough to 
warrant:


1. No on list response
2. A (very nasty) negative off-list response

On the gripping hand, if I were to post a reply to something 
sociopolitical, then I would be guaranteed at least an on-list response 
calling me an uneducated, imperialistic American.


Does anyone here REALLY want to do something about the energy crisis, or 
do you just want to fuck around?


I'm not going to apologize for that either, I am tired of the cheap talk 
and 'great promises' of bio-this-and-that and what have you. I make shit 
for money, but I put a nice fraction of what I have left over into my own 
research. So far I ended up with a fuel-efficient Chevy that the state 
took away on a technicality, and not much else besides a lack of creature 
comforts compared to others my age. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but 
getting past the "it might be something" point to the "this is the real 
deal" point has eluded me, primarily for lack of income, and moreso, lack 
of anyone to listen.


So...barely above poverty, putting almost all of my disposable (ha!) 
income into research that maybe will do something (on in a billion), 
buying the most energy efficient stuff I can find for heat and electricity 
because (big surprise to Vortex, I bet) I do care what happens to our 
civilization and our planet, trying to help the local biodiesel guys, 
trying to help get awareness stirred up in the locals (some developers 
too, at this point) about using passive solar collectors, and that they 
can be cheapif that isn't why I am supposed to be here, I don't know 
what is.


And if it makes me an uneducated, stupid American, then please bury me 
face down when I die, so the world can kiss my ass.
If that is considered a flame, I honestly don't care. I have no faith or 
patience left.


--Kyle

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

Sorry - that was Big Bobby Clobber's line - the resident hockey player on 
the Royal Canadian Air Farce:


"Do unto others before they do unto you."

P.




At 05:43 PM 11/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:

- Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?



Would all follow this law, we would be admitted into the Galactic
Federation.  Until then, we are considered unintelligent.


Unless the Galactic Federation (or locally most advanced interstellar 
species) subscribes to Pellegrino/Zebrowski's version of the 
"relativistic" Golden Rule:


"Do unto others as they would do unto you, and do it first." ;)

--Kyle

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

Namasté indeed...

Without the polarities of each of these (aggressive and passive - neither 
of which are "mine" or "yours"), there can't be full understanding.  But 
this full understanding can only happen, when both polarities are 
transcended.  And when they are transcended, there is no sower and no reaper.


no-P.


At 08:59 PM 11/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:

On 11/12/06, Philip Winestone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Terry - perhaps there's a corollary to that law:

"As you treat others, so you will be treated."


Yes, it's called "Karma", aka "reap what you sow" (x10).

Yours is agressive, mine is passive; and, is as taught by Yesua.

Namasté.

Terry

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

Terry - perhaps there's a corollary to that law:

"As you treat others, so you will be treated."

[From the alter-dimensional treatise on Galactic Federation Law]

P.


At 07:23 PM 11/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:

On 11/12/06, Philip Winestone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You're quite right Jones... for what it's worth, I genuinely appreciate
both your attitude and your approach.


There is but a single law:  "Treat others as you would be treated."

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Would all follow this law, we would be admitted into the Galactic
Federation.  Until then, we are considered unintelligent.

Rightly so.

Terry

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

You're quite right Jones... for what it's worth, I genuinely appreciate 
both your attitude and your approach.


This "conversation" doesn't belong here, so it should stop immediately.

Your points about unaccountable (unearned?) wealth are well taken.  I've 
been studying a little, the art of Japanese block printing, and one current 
practitioner - a Westerner, in fact - explains that he simply sells his 
work - piece by piece, day by day - for relatively small amounts of 
money.  In this way, he makes a living in a very simple way, and survives, 
day by day, piece by piece.  Contrast that by the quest by most artists 
these days, to get famous and make lots of money quickly by selling each 
piece as a "big (important) one."


I don't know if I explained that properly, but the idea is to work (at 
anything) day by day, piece by piece, so that in the end we'll have 
fulfilled our lives in a natural way... The natural process of life.


Otherwise life is just a giant, very foolish, lottery.

P.



At 07:19 AM 11/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
Oops... sorry to have been a participant in opening this can-of-worms, 
even if it is labeled as Off-Topic. Enough already.


Lest it gets lost in the shuffle of justifying the rant of a relapsing 
alcoholic with a large fan-base - there WAS a real point to all of this! 
... yes, the original point that led to this unfortunate digression is 
that the entertainment industry, especially the video game industry...


AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SOCIETAL CHANGE

...for really the first time in the history - has put inordinate amounts 
of *discretionary* wealth under the control of a less-mature and 
less-responsible segments of society.


Sure, there have been child kings and pharaohs in the past, but then as 
always, the real control of state was in the cadre of military generals, 
religious priests, and ministers, and the child king could do little 
permanent damage to those outside an immediate purview. IOW the available 
wealth was comparatively small and not very discretionary. How wealthy is 
any child-pharaoh who cannot watch TV, enoy a Big Mac or get minimal 
dental work? (turns out many of them suffered and died from dental abscesses).


These days, a population of wealthy computer geeks and movie and recording 
stars -teenagers and up, but with tens of millions of discretionary wealth 
at their disposal, presents another human dynamic, especially in the 
information age - where *reality* and *virtual reality* are converging 
rapidly - to the extent that real confusion is certain, and rather soon.


From that point on - the repercussions of unaccountable wealth digress 
into a myriad of possibilities, among which are very elaborate ARGs in 
the future. This is likely since some of that discretionary wealth is in 
the hands of the very segment of techies who will know how to manipulate 
reality - to the extent that an artificial reality story, of the "Wag the 
Dog" variety - when fostered into mainstream media, can have negative 
intended and unintended conswquences.


Yesbelieve it or not, this post started out as pertaining to the ARG 
trend of phenomenon ... and what that societal change might mean to our future.


... if H.G. Wells was able to frighten the socks off of quite a few 
farmers in New Jersey with "War of the Worlds" broadcast on Radio in 1938 
... imagine.


well one thing for sure... the times they are a changin'

Jones

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

Oh - and if you want to read an interesting take on the dichotomy between 
"talent" and "disgusting human beings,"  I suggest you read Orwell's 
"Benefit of Clergy." It may enlighten you.


[Aside: Sometimes I wonder how God manages to survive without people like 
Mel and his trusty followers flying His flag.]


P.



At 05:29 AM 11/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:

--- Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[**Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant caused
uproar...because of this very lame defense... that
criticism for 'The Passion Of The Christ' was the real
problem.

In all his hero-themed movies...even Mad Max, the
Patriot, Braveheart, and so on - he is playing the
hero of a group who were wronged by a dominating
majority. There are surely lots of Brits who didn't
like the inferences... **]

[**but Mel didn't rant on the many Brits who
criticized that movie.

That says volumes about this silly defense of having
been "smeared". Where is this so-called smear, other
than in a racist (juvenile) mentality?**]

There was an unrelenting campaign, lasting for months,
by the ADL and other Jewish organizations to paint the
movie, and, therefore, Gibson, as anti-semitic. You
can go to any search engine and find references.
Naturally, the smear included mention of his father's
dislike of Jews.

Yet you pretend that the criticisms by Brits of
Braveheart, if they really exist, are comparable to
the shit that Jews threw at Gibson for months, simply
because he had the gall to make a movie about the
founder of his religion.

His rant against Jews is quite understandable given
their smears against him.



[**...some of this paternal garbage has got
to rub off on any kid - but it is no excuse at age 50
to have not "gotten over it".**]

No doubt you have never met Gibson and can only guess
about the kind of man he is and about how he was
formed. Certainly, nobody completely 'gets over' the
experiences of childhood, good or bad, but not getting
over it isn't 'juvenile' and it is ludicrous to say
that it is.

You decided to casually smear Gibson by referring to
him as juvenile, and now try to justify it by further
smearing him as a child of his father, somewhat like
the situation in Stalinist Russia, where the children
of an 'enemy of the people' were treated like
second-class citizens, if they themselves didn't end
up in the gulag.


[**and owe most of your considerable wealth and
success to the very Jewish-named businessmen who
control some of the movie industry...**]

It's obvious that Gibson owes his wealth and success
to his own abilities.

By the way, what is it with 'Jewish-named' and
'control some'? What a strange view of reality you
seem to have. Why not just say that Jews control the
movie industry? Even Jews say it.





Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Vo]: OT: Give Mel a Break?

[Philip Winestone]

"The Jews" got upset at Gibson's portrayal of them in the film, because it 
perpetuates what is at best a myth and at worst a slander that's been going 
on for 2000 years.  Do yourself a favour and read James Carroll's 
"Constantine's Sword" a book that shows just how much "the Jews" owe to 
Constantine and the Nicean Creed that was born under his jurisdiction.


The Catholic Church is now beginning to openly display some sort of 
appreciation of Chrisianity's Jewish roots.  But at the time, Constantine 
and his folks were in the business of turning Judaism - the religion of 
Jesus (or Yehoshua) - upside down; whatever "the Jews" did, the early 
church did the opposite.  In other words, they made a decision to promote 
early Christianity based on a hatred of "the other"  - "the Jews").


It's gotten to the point now, or should I say, again, that every criticism 
of these slanders against "the Jews" is portrayed by people like you - and 
you can fill in the blanks here - as "smears."  But of course "smearing" 
"the Jews" is ok, because, well... they deserve it, right?


Gotta go now; just going into my underground bunker to take stock of the 
millions of gold bars we've accumulated, and to find out how many Christian 
babies we need in order to bake our next year's batch of matzoh... the same 
matzoh that Jesus used to eat...


P.


At 05:29 AM 11/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:

--- Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[**Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant caused
uproar...because of this very lame defense... that
criticism for 'The Passion Of The Christ' was the real
problem.

In all his hero-themed movies...even Mad Max, the
Patriot, Braveheart, and so on - he is playing the
hero of a group who were wronged by a dominating
majority. There are surely lots of Brits who didn't
like the inferences... **]

[**but Mel didn't rant on the many Brits who
criticized that movie.

That says volumes about this silly defense of having
been "smeared". Where is this so-called smear, other
than in a racist (juvenile) mentality?**]

There was an unrelenting campaign, lasting for months,
by the ADL and other Jewish organizations to paint the
movie, and, therefore, Gibson, as anti-semitic. You
can go to any search engine and find references.
Naturally, the smear included mention of his father's
dislike of Jews.

Yet you pretend that the criticisms by Brits of
Braveheart, if they really exist, are comparable to
the shit that Jews threw at Gibson for months, simply
because he had the gall to make a movie about the
founder of his religion.

His rant against Jews is quite understandable given
their smears against him.



[**...some of this paternal garbage has got
to rub off on any kid - but it is no excuse at age 50
to have not "gotten over it".**]

No doubt you have never met Gibson and can only guess
about the kind of man he is and about how he was
formed. Certainly, nobody completely 'gets over' the
experiences of childhood, good or bad, but not getting
over it isn't 'juvenile' and it is ludicrous to say
that it is.

You decided to casually smear Gibson by referring to
him as juvenile, and now try to justify it by further
smearing him as a child of his father, somewhat like
the situation in Stalinist Russia, where the children
of an 'enemy of the people' were treated like
second-class citizens, if they themselves didn't end
up in the gulag.


[**and owe most of your considerable wealth and
success to the very Jewish-named businessmen who
control some of the movie industry...**]

It's obvious that Gibson owes his wealth and success
to his own abilities.

By the way, what is it with 'Jewish-named' and
'control some'? What a strange view of reality you
seem to have. Why not just say that Jews control the
movie industry? Even Jews say it.





Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Vo]:

[Philip Winestone]

"I know that Jews have been smearing him ever since he
had the gall to make a movie about the founder of his
religion, but I'm sorry to see you joining in."

What you say here says more about you than about "Jews".

I'm sorry to see you joining in.

P.



At 11:46 AM 11/11/2006 -0800, you wrote:


--- Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Consequently, by analogy and given inordinate wealth
> in immature hands, which is obviously in the case of
> juvenile mentality types in Hollywood, like Tom
> Cruise, Madonna, Mel Gibson...

Mel Gibson? A 50 year-old husband and father; a savvy
actor and producer, deeply committed to his religion.
He has a juvenile mentality?

I know that Jews have been smearing him ever since he
had the gall to make a movie about the founder of his
religion, but I'm sorry to see you joining in.




Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

Re: [Vo]: Original OU?

[Philip Winestone]

Or you can perhaps entertain the theory that human evolution is not the 
commonly-accepted straight line trend from the ape until now, at which time 
we modern-day humans are at the supreme end-point (all of us) of millions 
of years of positive evolution.  And there's more to come... In fact 
so-called evolution  may be like virtually all natural occurrences in that 
it comes and goes in very large cycles.  Take a look around you and try to 
figure out where exactly we are right now in the "evolutionary cycle," 
without placing too much emphasis on our "toys."


It could be that the pyramids were in place well before the Egyptians took 
them over as "interesting" burial places.  So the idea of the "major 
explosion in technology" in ancient Egypt may not be a reasonable 
fact.  Question of course is, what would have promoted this explosion of 
technology?


Anyone looking at the cave paintings in Lascaux, from 15000 years ago, then 
looking at the Chauve-Pont-D'arc paintings from about 3 years ago, may 
see that the older paintings were far "better" than the newer ones (which 
were quite superb), leading us (well - me, that is) to believe that there 
was a high degree of civilization somewhere on Earth, before the Egyptian 
one - a mere 4000 years ago - than current dogma lets us believe.


P.




At 08:58 AM 10/28/2006 -0700, you wrote:
Before anyone starts to take what follows too seriously, let me say that 
it is offered in the "spirit of the season" shall we say. That season 
being the rather irrational season around Halloween with its ties to the 
ancient Celts and even to the Egyptians. Hey - I am trying to avoid 
pumpkin-carving by pretending to be "at work" 


I have to add this caveat, because many normally perceptive individuals 
tend to go a little gaga about the Egyptians (or the Celts) and their 
accomplishments. You know... "lost knowledge" and all of that. Don't get 
me wrong - in the context of what came before, it is almost like the a 
major explosion in technology took place around the start of the 4th 
Dynasty, leading many to invent all kinds of hypotheses for that - like 
"alien" contact and so on. You can buy into the concept of lost knowledge 
without going all the way to alien-contact, but hey... this time of year, 
anything goes.


Let's don't even go there, at least not precisely all the way to aliens... 
but instead consider a minor detail of the Pyramid of Cheops - that being 
the shafts leading from the so-called King's and Queen's chambers. But 
that in the context of putative "free energy". Here is some good detail:


http://www.cheops.org/startpage/thefindings/thefindings.htm

... and I will not go into the various theories regarding the function of 
the shafts as passageways for the soul etc, except to say that when 
discovered, two of them were heavily filled with soot. However, there does 
seem to be a strange Cartouche next to one shaft which translates to the 
equivalent of "hyperfine"  ;-)


Right. Well, in this context, one must introduce the ancient phenomenon of 
the "eternal flame" or the "ever-burning lamp" (the original genie's lamp) 
--- the importance of which symbol and the proven relics thereof cannot be 
over-emphasized to the mentality of ancient people. The ever-burning lamp 
was a daily miracle to them - a goal of pilgrimage and a gift from 
divinity ... especially considering the importance of fire - to early 
civilization.


Unfortunately, the archaeology often gets mixed up with other things, as 
is the case of Ms. Lloyd here:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=12801

...but anyway, in a few of the dozens of ancient sites where eternal 
flames were known to have been going, apparently unattended, and of course 
worshipped, there has been the prevalent hypothesis that the source of 
flame was a slow underground seepage of natural gas. This source kept the 
flames going for centuries, it is said. Many of these were located in 
caves in areas which have some hydrocarbon geology - and we all know the 
stories of "coal gas" in the Appalachians of the USA. This explanation is 
bolstered by the fact that some lamps were extinguished after earthquakes.


Anyway - back to the shafts in the Pyramid of Cheops, where of course 
there is no underground seepage of natural gas, or coal, and any priest 
who was carrying a secret lamp-refill would have been easily spotted ... 
consequently - one might be justified to consider whether the shafts 
themselves could somehow capture of focus a hidden source of energy, which 
might be involved in either augmenting slow combustion or perhaps in 
powering a natural iridescence or certain minerals ... or both.


(assuming that these were not the lamps of early grave robbers - or of the 
craftsmen finishing the work, which is the mundane explanation, which we 
want to avoid at all costs during this special season of alternative 
reality )


Anyway, I will leave the "trick-or-treat" 

Re: [Vo]: Re: Chinese Tokomak Fusion

[Philip Winestone]

The message below was for Kyle... Not that the rest of the Vorts don't make 
excellent points...


P.


At 07:08 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:
You make some excellent points.  The moon mission was the highlight of our 
times (aside from what the conspiracy-loons think) and the US dropped the 
ball, no doubt for all sorts of political reasons.  My feeling is that 
NASA ultimately lost its "edge" as illustrated by the shuttle's nasty 
gasket and detaching tiles problems.


Perhaps private enterprise - re the craft that touched the edge of space, 
a short time ago, using private funding (and private intelligence) alone - 
will continue the conquest of space.


Man is now back to keeping his eyes glued to the ground as opposed to 
staring expectantly at the heavens.


P.


At 01:44 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:

- Original Message - From: "Standing Bear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:50 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Chinese Tokomak Fusion


PS  The Chinese are also interested in the Shawyer photonic drive device.
Wanted to buy the rights to it.


I think its interesting that, should a reactionless drive actually be 
invented, (I do not know what is going on with Shawyer, the information 
that I have seen is a bit troubling, possibly some big mistakes made), 
that anyone will actually respect "rights to it." In any case, in my 
view, should China ever get "rights" to something like this, we should 
ignore it, and build ours anyways. Should they complain, tell them to go 
screw off: its just back payment for everything they stole from the west.


In any case, its like trying to liscense the use of relativity.


Maybe this is the first puff of
wind from a storm that will blow us into a new era.


Consider the storms made by an impacting small asteroid, maybe pushed 
down by a Chinese spacecraft? I do not like the idea of the Chinese 
having "Space Superiority". There are plenty of rocks to find up there, 
just waiting for someone to give them a nudge. I get a frightening 
thought of a colony of Muslim fanatics in the asteroid beltif most 
civilizations produce backwards, fanatical cultures within themselves, it 
might explain the Fermi paradox.


Space is the new high ground, and it will be a new battleground. But, I 
suppose that is just our nature. We are explorers and conquerors. Maybe 
that is what is causing the US to spiral down so badly; we have lost the 
drive to go to new places, that spirit of conquering the unknown that 
puts humans at their best. I do see one thing that might be good about 
the new frontier of space: it is going to be an unparalleled challenge. 
If it is so much harder to tame than what we have ever had to deal with 
before, then maybe, just maybe, we might all work together in its conquest.


On that note, I think that if we do not move on to explore and conquer 
space, we will eventually destroy ourselves one way or another; it won't 
be from depletion of resources, or lack of new energy sources, or global 
whatever. Apathy will set in, people will get further into the spirit of 
today's youth, the "I don't care, lets just get stoned and have tons of 
sex" attitude, and when the big problems come to face us, we won't have a 
solution. Not because it doesn't exist, but because we just didn't give a 
damn. The cold fusion situation might be a good example of this. If I 
were to write the epitaph on some future gravestone of the human race, it 
would be very simple. SELF LIMITING.


Me, I prefer what the fictional character of Khan Noonien-Singh said 
"And I got what I wanted. A world to win, an empire to build."


Man, I'm too young to be this depressing
--Kyle