Hi folks, Interesting discussions the last couple of days.
Whenever a new person joins who seems to exhibit a prominent personality, there's always a period of give and take as the new member and the rest of the group (including other prominent personalities) adjust to one another. Neville provides a recent, pretty classic example that's working out rather well lately! <waves to Neville!> Right now, I'd say Indi is the one on the hot seat! <grin> Welcome, ma'am! I think for Indi and the rest of us to get the most benefit from her participation, it'd be good to clarify exactly what we're doing here and what kind of expectations are reasonable. First of all, we're not professional researchers. We are a bunch of individuals with varying backgrounds and a shared interest in the subject of whatever this stuff is that we call "CS." Anecdotal reports and a few individuals' more careful experiments are the backbone of our data gathering efforts. Our greatest resource is that we have accumulated a *lot* of experience and practical results over the last 10 years, enough that we've been able to form a general consensus on: What things do we pretty well know are true? What things do we know are most likely false? What things are still open to debate, and what are the major positions? We have a general definition of at least one kind of CS preparation that we think is pretty effectivne, safe and economical: Low voltage, low current density, pure water and silver only, clear, colorless, faint tyndall effect, 5-15 ppm. It's not the only way to go, but we consider it a pretty good bet. Another major point of consensus is that: ionic silver works; particulate silver works; mixtures of the two work. Despite numeroius arguments, claims and counter-claims presented over the years, assertions that either one does *not* work are unconvincing. So when a new person arrives, searching for information and navigating all the conflicting claims and propaganda, we can help them by pruning the tree at least a little, and giving them some better context for what remains. Now, to change or influence any part of this consensus is going to require a lot more than bold assertions and strong opinions! It will take time, a body of reports and/or experimental results that support your ideas, and even a (rather casual) form of peer review. Sounds a little like science, right? However, and this is important, the minimum standards for publication here are *NOT* anywhere near on par with scientific or medical journals! Remember, we're still just a bunch of tinkerers and amateurs, with an occasional more serious experimentalist or theorist thrown in to keep things interesting. Neither are we anti-intellectual. If you want to share real scientific results, carefully obtained and analyzed, you'll find an appreciative audience, believe me, just as citations to the literature will be happily explored by those of us who have that level of interest. Meanwhile, folks coming here for basic help and direction should receive plenty of support, encouragement, and practical answers they can actually use, and not be confronted by a hostile, confrontational atmosphere filled with bickering technophiles. <grin> On a practical level, Indi, I'd suggest a couple of adjustments to what you expect from us... As a member, it's not generally your role to police what other people are saying. That's my job. If you feel something is out of line, let me know in private and I'll consider your input. This includes standards for evidence and proof for the things people say. In the example of your earlier exchange with Ken, his claim that... "I've left ionic silver on a sunny window sill for as long as 5 years and it was still ionic and unchanged." ... was more than adequately substantiated as far as I'm concerned, given that, when asked, he was able to give us methodology, results and analysis sufficient that anyone with a mind to do so could judge the reliability of his statement. Accusing him of making "unsubstantiated claims" of the sort perpetrated by all the marketing clowns out on the 'net was not fair. As list owner, my standards for the group apply here, rather than some arbitrary degree of scientific rigor you would prefer. The other expectation I'd hope to see you scale back a little is your belief that *anything* we could do here would result in institutional acceptance of CS. Structuring all our activities and day-to-day discussions to try to motivate some hypothetical researchers to dedicate themselves to legitimizing this particular alternative health item is not really part of our mission brief. Our focus is on helping new people and each other, and sharing our results as we try to develop the art. It may sound paranoid, but at least here in the United States the special interests are sufficiently entrenched that you're likely unique in still hoping that they will ever open the door to CS. That may change, but we're not waiting on them. It's obvious from carefully reading your posts that you are quite intelligent and your understanding of the world has a lot in common with most of the rest of us. You've already heard some things from other members that are new and interesting to you. That's pretty typical of what you'll get if you stick around for a while and mine the "brain trust." I hope that gives you a better understanding of what we're about. Be well, Mike Devour silver-list owner [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [mdev...@eskimo.com ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
