science forum beginner
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
|Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:
"Retic Postings and SPAM"
"Retic Postings and SPAM"
There have been multiple accusations that the postings of H. E. Retic
are SPAM. The writer's postings are carefully constructed so as remain
within the commonly accepted rules concerning SPAM, to wit:
1. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made to more
than eight Newsgroups. The writer has limited his postings to seven
2. Postings of essentially identical material shall not be made more
frequently than every 14 days. The writer's posting are separated by a
longer time span.
3. Postings shall be reasonably close to the topic to which the
Newsgroups is dedicated. My postings are closer to being on topic for each
Newsgroup than are most of the postings within that group.
4. The postings shall not be used for commercial purposes. They are
5. There shall be no alteration of the header material of the postings.
While the postings are made under many different E-mail names, however AOL
provides for multiple user names and permits them to be altered at will.
None of the writer's actions constitute SPAM as it is currently
defined. The accusations that the writer is a SPAMMER can reasonably
considered to be the slanderous behavior of sick minds. My postings are to
de facto public newsgroups which, as such, cannot limit their postings to
material that agrees with the majority viewpoint and still retain their
legitimacy. That type of censorship is legitimate only when done by
moderated groups. To avoid this censorship, the writer has made use of his
ISP's useful capability of allowing E-mail name changes. (It has been
alleged that such changes are the characteristic of a "crank". They are not,
they are the response of any reasonable individual whose ideas are being
The writer concludes that the strident protest against the writer's
postings can only result from fear, otherwise why wouldn't they just be
ignored if the content were thought not to be valid. After all, there are
many more foolish postings than mine made to these Newsgroups without
evoking complaint. The only reason for the complaints would seem to be that
the complainer is not upset by the fact the posted material is "wrong", he
is upset by the idea that they challenge what he has been taught and he may
be forced to "go back to the drawing board" and relearn his physics.
Even more sinister is the possibility that the complainers know that
their science is defective and wish to shield it from question from students
of the subject. Such questions make it much more difficult to indoctrinate
students with the "one true faith" which must not be questioned. It should
be noted that the complainers have not attempted to answer any of the basic
questions which have been raised, instead they have resorted to
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- email@example.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:10 pm | All times are GMT
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group