On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
No! you are squirming to dodge the question of- did someone
intentionally insult the guy needlessly.
Hey, people insult me all the time. Just ask me. Does that mean I
should sue for defamation?
Something taken as an insult doesn't necessarily constitute libel or
defamation. No one has called Ron a con man. Many have criticized
his work. That is an inherent part of the scientific process. This
is a scientific list. People have also criticized his behavior.
When a person decides to behave far outside the norm for a group they
have to expect criticism and insults. That is in fact normative
group behavior. It is in fact *unreasonable* to not expect such a
response to violating the norms. A person with common sense should
*expect* such a response. It comes with the territory double where
claims of free energy or over unity operation are concerned. We have
to assume Ron is not an idiot and thus *expected* the responses he
has received. The question in the minds of many then is why has he
acted as he has, is acting as he is? This is and has been a
reasonable thing to ask - why is he acting this way? What's the
payoff?
It may not have been you personally, but do NOT try to frame this
as an "innocent question" type of thing. It went way beyond that.
Ron states through Jones Beene:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007
From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler
Although Free Speech is on of the foundations that built our America and
still to some degree prevails, there is a fine line between Criticism,
Slander and Defamation.
I still maintain the 'Choice' on how, when and by what means to
release Part or Complete Information on any or all devices or
Research I have or am Performing. I do not march to the Vortex Drum
or any other, I can be as Coy, Sly and Arrogant as I wish, just as
you may and are displaying.
For those of you in the US, rest assured that I no longer consider
any of this to be constructive in any way and feel it has crossed the
line. It does show the True Colors of You All.
Rest assured my work is not going away, it will not be removed from the
Internet or My Web Site, It will not be buried.
I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side that is the
only way to receive redress in cases such as this.
The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are most
excited to assist me in this endeavor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote of letter from Ron through Jones Beene
This looks like a threat of lawsuit. If there is no answer from Ron
as to whether this is a threat of lawsuit then it seems we should
take it as such. If so then I agree with Stephan that this is way
over the line. As far as I know, no one here has tried to stop Ron
from either experimenting or posting, despite his implying that is
the case: "My work is not going away, it will not be removed from the
Internet or My Web Site, It will not be buried." Criticism is not a
suppression of freedom of speech. Now it is *Ron* who is attempting
to steal our first amendment rights by suppressing our criticism.
Here is another bizarre and notable behavior. Ron complains his web
site has been denial of service "attacked". Yet he still keeps huge
amounts of text and photos all in one giant string of data,
copyrights it, and threatens legal action if his copyright is
violated. Every time anyone needs to look at some small aspect of
Ron's work they have to snooze idly while the huge glut of data is
loaded by their browser from Ron's site. When Ron internationally
announces new material is on his web site he should *expect* it to
get jammed. It appears to be at least in part his fault. Whether
someone is out to get him or not, keeping his stuff all in one long
string is a disservice to his readers and to himself. One has to
wonder if he has a motive for such inexplicable behavior.
It seems to me Stephan's question is the one needing an answer
Jones. I ask too, is this a threat to sue anyone on vortex? If so,
then Ron should explicitly state whom and why.
And as for your juvenile repetition of "are we there
yet" ...Rightly or wrongly - he believes that the frivolous
question-after-question on the same issue were adequately answered
numerous times, and that the continuous harping and insinuation at
that point- goes to his honesty or capability.
Hey, my honesty and capability is often questioned. That doesn't
mean (a) I shouldn't expect it, considering I'm a member of the free
energy lunatic fringe, (b) that I should threaten to or actually sue
anyone, (c) feel bad, or (d) stop anything I'm doing. As long as he
is claiming over unity devices Ron should expect extreme scrutiny.
He said from day one that he eliminated ground looping and AM - and
to re-ask the same question twenty times since, then does give the
insinuation that you think that he is lying or incapable ... Either
accept his word, or move on to something else.
We should never accept anyone's word for experimental proof of
anything scientific. Without replication and peer review it is not
established science, and thus open to critique and even derision.
Throughout history perpetual motion claimers in particular have been
subject to this. Calling it "free energy" doesn't change a thing.
Scrutiny is essential and a service to the community. Besides, I
would not be surprised that even 8th graders would question your
above remark. You have a wire running to a device. It works with
the wire but not without it. What remains without the wire is
therefore not a self powering device! Question the function of the
wire. Duh! You then build a different gadget with a battery. It
works with the battery, but not without. What remains without the
battery is not self powering device (so far). Question the role of
the battery. Duh! You insult my intelligence by insinuating I
should not be critical of this, that I or anyone should either accept
Ron's word (or yours), or move on to something else.
Geeze... get real. Are you so out to lunch on petty details that
you cannot see the forest for the trees? He does not owe you a
detailed accounting of how he eliminated these issues -
If he's threatening a defamation suit then that's the least he
owes. Where is the proof Ron has eliminated the issues? Where's
the slightest evidence of slander or defamation? As long as he or
you repeat claims of the colossal achievement of free energy,
perpetual motion in effect, you can both expect criticism. In fact,
Jones, it is partially *your* outlandish unsupported claims that have
stirred up a skeptastrophe. All this strange behavior forces me to
wonder if it is not a skeptastrophe that is in fact the main
objective, except I just can't figure out why that would be
desirable. What would be the payoff? It all makes no sense.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen,
I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been
told) if you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you
are a better shot than he is...
Nobody's called anybody a con man.
You didn't answer the question, Jones. Your response amounts to
saying insulting someone will make them mad, and people in Texas
carry guns.
Is Ron seriously threatening to sue us all? Please answer the
question.
Jones Beene wrote:
To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007
From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler
[ ... ]
I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side
that is the
only way to receive redress in cases such as this.
The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are
most excited to assist me in this endeavor.
Is Ron threatening to sue us all for questioning his circuit and
objecting to his methods???
That has REALLY "crossed the line".
On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On 11/1/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote my message about "cold reception" the day before. I see
that a
day later Ron has gotten angry and left the overunity.com forum.
He's back and claiming that you called him a "con-artist".
Such a claim itself could be libel. Does this mean Bill Beaty should
threaten a law suit? Probably not. Anyone got a spare shotgun? I'm
lookin' to depart the Dime Box, but I'm afraid I'll get shot in the
back. 8^)
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
